I'm a little bit miffed over this current craze of `types` and `correctness` of programs. It smells to me of the whole `object` craze of the last two decades. I agree that types (like objects) have their uses, especially in very well defined problems, but they have got me in trouble over and over again when I am working in an area where the goal is unclear and requirements are constantly changing.
BTW... This is no means a criticism of all the type system work that is going on in the clojure community. I am a huge fan of Ambrose's Typed Clojure project because it gives me the *option *of using types... not shoving it down my throat. I like the freedom to choose. My experience of programming in clojure has freed me from thinking about types and hierarchies and this article rings so true: http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/is-weak-typing-strong-enough. However, everywhere I look, there are smug type-weenies telling me that my dynamically typed program is bad because it cannot be `proven correct` and not `checked by the compiler`. This question on SO really makes me angry.... http://stackoverflow.com/questions/42934/what-do-people-find-so-appealing-about-dynamic-languages.... because no one is defending dynamic languages on there. The reason is very simple..... because we don`t have a theory to back us up! I do want to put up an counter argument against this barrage of abuse against dynamic languages. And I want to put some academic weight behind this. The only counter I could come up with was to use Godel's incompleteness theorem. For those that don't know... here is an introduction to the man and his theory. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2KP1vWkQ6Y. Godel's theorem, invalidated Principia Mathematica as a complete system of description. Principia Mathematica btw.... effectively led to Type Theory. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory. "The types of type theory were invented by Bertrand Russell in response to his discovery that Gottlob Frege's version of naive set theory was afflicted with Russell's paradox. This theory of types features prominently in Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica. It avoids Russell's paradox by first creating a hierarchy of types, then assigning each mathematical (and possibly other) entity to a type. Objects of a given type are built exclusively from objects of preceding types (those lower in the hierarchy), thus preventing loops." I'm hoping to collect a few more `proofs` from the clojure community... for example... if there is a paper on "why are type systems so bad at classifying animals"... then please forward it on. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
