Dougal Stanton wrote:
On 18/04/07, R Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One of the truly powerful things about Haskell is the short distance
between
theory and practicality. The problem is how to demonstrate this
convincingly. The ability to prove a program's correctness is regularly
trotted out for show in this arena (or at least the lighter-weight claim
that programs that compile usually work). I don't think that most
developers (and certainly not the OSCON crowd) are ready to drink that
kool-aid. They *enjoy* debugging and are tired of the "static" vs.
"dynamic" debate. But the ability to reason about programs has borne
fruit
that I *do* think they will appreciate. Because many of them care about
performance.
I completely agree with you there. Someone earlier in the thread
mentioned that QuickCheck almost in passing, but I think it should be
emphasised:
*QuickCheck is a really powerful way to work.*
Recently Neil Mitchell made an interesting blog post on this
(http://neilmitchell.blogspot.com/2007/04/coding-nirvana.html).
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
