On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 10:54 -0700, Ingo W. wrote: > > […] > Don't forget that source code is not only written for computers, but > also > for humans. > The type signature often serves as a compiler checked documentation.
Indeed, but: 1. I get the comment a lot: if Haskell and Frege are supposed to be terse, why have all this extra un-needed type information. 2. Many of the types in Haskell and Frege are almost Voldemort Types, i.e. they cannot be written down. D (where the term started), Chapel, and other languages often have types that it is necessary to let the compiler be in charge of. So there is a move to having less type information in the code. Sometimes this is the wrong thing to do though, but… So whilst I have followed the idiom of having explicit type signatures, I am rapidly heading towards not having them. For people who are not type theorists but just programmers, the types can all too often get in the way of understanding the code, they are sometimes anti- documentation. I shall dither a bit more and be decisive later. Maybe. :-) -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Frege Programming Language" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to frege-programming-language+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
