mt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > http://paulgraham.com/lispfaq1.html
> [Most hackers I know have been disappointed by the ML family. Languages with > static typing would be more suitable if programs were something you thought > of in advance, and then merely translated into code. But that's not how > programs get written. I disagree. Static typing in essence gives you a lot of small unit tests for free. When refactoring code, these tests are often sufficient to ensure that the refactored code works. (Other types of errors are usually weeded out in the unfactored code, and not introduced by refactoring) Static typing also gives you the flexibility to juggle compositions of higher order functions; I almost always commit type errors when constructing a largish expression, but when the type errors are weeded out, more often than not the expression works as expected. All IME, of course. -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
