> The Erlang world has a tool called "Dialyzer"
w00t.
i've always very much liked that approach, and wish it were available
for other dynamic languages (maybe qi-lang is somewhat similar). it
seems to offer everybody whatever options they want, so we can all get
along. sorta in the vein of gradu
On Thursday 12 March 2009 06:38:48 Korny Sietsma wrote:
> But maybe you use unit tests some other way? How do you use unit
> tests to track down bugs?
I mean: I had unit tests for each function but they were not identifying the
bug so I kept augmenting them with more tests in the hope that I wo
On Mar 12, 3:22 am, Mark Engelberg wrote:
> I know of someone who tracked all his bugs in a year of coding in both
> Scheme (dynamic) and ML (static). He said that there was no real
> difference. The kind of bugs that are caught by static type systems
> are also quickly identified upon an initi
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Jon Harrop wrote:
> IME, the trouble can be well worth it. I once wasted two weeks trying to track
> down bugs in a thousand lines of code using unit tests and never managed it.
> When I finally caved in and tried to leverage the static type system instead,
> I f
> A while ago, I did some brute force tests on a simple stack-based
> language to get some testable metrics on how many unit tests you need
> to guarantee correctness. With a language of 7 instructions and a
> maximum program size of 8 instructions, there are about 6.7 million
> program permutation
This is a nice post . . . would the partially static typing come from the
IDE? That seems like the trend right now, but then you gotta get a good
IDE, and no two would ever be the same, which I think is controversial.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:27 PM, chris wrote:
>
> I don't think it is impossi
On Mar 12, 12:26 am, Jon Harrop wrote:
> On Thursday 12 March 2009 00:01:43 James Reeves wrote:
> > This doesn't have to be the case. There is nothing inherently magical
> > about a types that makes them more concise to define than a unit test.
>
> Type inference: you don't write anything and the
I know of someone who tracked all his bugs in a year of coding in both
Scheme (dynamic) and ML (static). He said that there was no real
difference. The kind of bugs that are caught by static type systems
are also quickly identified upon an initial run with a few basic test
cases in a dynamic typ
On Thursday 12 March 2009 00:28:06 Raoul Duke wrote:
> i mean, one of the major benefits, i think, of immutability is that
> you are in so many ways actually reducing the cognitive load that you
> are under when running mental simulations of your program -- which is
> a crucial part of being a pro
> On the other hand, I do seem to get less bugs than with Ruby, so
> perhaps immutability is a more significant factor than static typing
> when it comes to creating robust applications.
in a way, i can totally believe that, and it sounds really good, even
if it isn't true :-)
i mean, one of the
On Thursday 12 March 2009 00:01:43 James Reeves wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2:31 am, Jon Harrop wrote:
> > > 2. The whole thing does not need to be complete or even functional for
> > > you to start unit testing.
> >
> > Apples and oranges: unit tests are not the same between dynamic and
> > static code
On Mar 11, 2:31 am, Jon Harrop wrote:
> > 2. The whole thing does not need to be complete or even functional for
> > you to start unit testing.
>
> Apples and oranges: unit tests are not the same between dynamic and static
> code bases because dynamic code bases rely upon a huge number of additio
You can get those warm fuzzies back when you develop in an IDE such as
Netbeans, IntelliJ, or Eclipse. They can compile the code and provide
some feedback. The plugins are kinda young, but they may provide
enough to help make the jump.
Joshua
On Mar 10, 1:16 am, zoltar wrote:
> Hey everyone. I'
On Mar 11, 4:17 pm, "ntu...@googlemail.com"
wrote:
> I would appreciate it if you would consider his arguments instead of
> discrediting him. His post is not insulting and contains valid
> arguments. So please don't shoot the messenger.
When the "messenger" is habitually insulting he loses cr
On Wednesday 11 March 2009 20:27:15 chris wrote:
> Lets take this discussion forward and think of how we could
> incrementally add the important benefits of strongly typed and
> inferred systems like ML, Haskell, and F# to Clojure while keeping the
> very beautiful and clean syntax and minimal men
I don't think it is impossible to begin adding type inference and
stronger typing to clojure or any fully dynamic language.
You could begin with a set of runtime tests (such as range of a given
number or what keys are in a dictionary). These tests allow you to go
from an untyped world to a typed
On Mar 11, 5:26 am, Raffael Cavallaro
wrote:
> Some of you may not know of Jon's behvior on comp.lang.lisp so some
> background will be useful here.
I would appreciate it if you would consider his arguments instead of
discrediting him. His post is not insulting and contains valid
arguments. So p
On Wednesday 11 March 2009 18:35:46 Cosmin Stejerean wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Jon Harrop wrote:
> > Another red herring: you are describing a disadvantage of nominal over
> > structural typing. Not dynamic vs static typing.
>
> You are correct, my apologies. I was trying to show
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Jon Harrop wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 11 March 2009 15:30:01 Cosmin Stejerean wrote:
> > Actually it happens a lot in real code and in many non-trivial programs
> in
> > static typed languages you end up with a proliferation of types that are
> > simply there to make
On Wednesday 11 March 2009 18:18:59 Raoul Duke wrote:
> > Another red herring: you are describing a disadvantage of nominal over
> > structural typing. Not dynamic vs static typing.
>
> there are probably several different arguments being conflated in such
> discussions.
>
> for example, theory v
> Another red herring: you are describing a disadvantage of nominal over
> structural typing. Not dynamic vs static typing.
there are probably several different arguments being conflated in such
discussions.
for example, theory vs. practice: there is the theory of what in fact
are the options f
On Wednesday 11 March 2009 15:30:01 Cosmin Stejerean wrote:
> Actually it happens a lot in real code and in many non-trivial programs in
> static typed languages you end up with a proliferation of types that are
> simply there to make the compiler happy. To me it happens very often where
> I know
On Wednesday 11 March 2009 15:05:39 Konrad Hinsen wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 3:31, Jon Harrop wrote:
> > Most of the reasons given in this thread were red herrings and many
> > of static
> > typing's real issues were not even touched upon:
>
> ...
>
> I'd add two more:
>
> - Metaprogramming is a
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:44 PM, e wrote:
>
> > My interest right now in following clojure is to learn ALL the arguments,
> including his.
>
The problems with Jon's criticisms is that they are the same fear,
uncertainty and doubt ideas that are repeated time and time again by static
language ze
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Jon Harrop wrote:
[...]
>
> > 2. The whole thing does not need to be complete or even functional for
> > you to start unit testing.
>
> Apples and oranges: unit tests are not the same between dynamic and static
> code bases because dynamic code bases rely upon a
On Mar 11, 2009, at 3:31, Jon Harrop wrote:
> Most of the reasons given in this thread were red herrings and many
> of static
> typing's real issues were not even touched upon:
...
I'd add two more:
- Metaprogramming is a lot more complicated with static typing. Look
at MetaOCaml or Templa
On Wednesday 11 March 2009 04:44:17 e wrote:
> ...Afterall he could have chosen a dynamically typed language for his
> business if he had wanted to...
FWIW, my company ships products written in many different languages including
dynamic languages and I have been programming in dynamic languages
2009/3/11 mikel mev...@mac.com
>
>
>
> Saying that something sucks and suggesting that people who like it are
> fools isn't an argument, it's just yanking people's chains to get
> attention.
Are you talking about Linus's speak against cvs, subversion and their users
? :-)
ok, this was just a j
On Mar 10, 11:44 pm, e wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Raffael Cavallaro <
>
>
>
>
>
> raffaelcavall...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[...comments on Harrop's marketing tactics...]
> h, that could sound like more of an endorsement than anything he could
> have said, himself! Afterall he
On Mar 11, 12:44 am, e wrote:
> h, that could sound like more of an endorsement than anything he could
> have said, himself! Afterall he could have chosen a dynamically typed
> language for his business if he had wanted to.
You have to be an expert in something to run a business selling
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Raffael Cavallaro <
raffaelcavall...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Some of you may not know of Jon's behvior on comp.lang.lisp so some
> background will be useful here.
>
> He runs a business selling ocaml and f# consulting and training
> services and materials. He routin
Some of you may not know of Jon's behvior on comp.lang.lisp so some
background will be useful here.
He runs a business selling ocaml and f# consulting and training
services and materials. He routinely posts insulting and inflammatory
remarks about lispers and lisp in comp.lang.lisp.
He admits hi
On Tuesday 10 March 2009 13:26:32 Vincent Foley wrote:
> Here's my feeling on it (note that I am talking about languages from
> the C family, not Haskell or ML).
Then the feelings you are describing are specifically about C and are not
related to static typing in general.
> 1. Like Jason Wolfe
On Tuesday 10 March 2009 21:33:38 Mark Engelberg wrote:
> A static type system also documents these properties, but you're
> restricted to certain concepts that the computer can understand and
> prove things about. You'll start to realize that there are concepts
> that are difficult or impossible
this is an interesting question to me. Seems like there are at least two
parts: a) do you like compilation and static code analysis, b) do you like a
strong type system?
Some has already been said about (a) and more about (b). For me, it's still
bizarre in python that I can be running a program
I think the key to feeling confident in dynamically typed code is to
go ahead and write out the "contract" for the function in your
comments. You should always state what the "domain" and the "range"
of the function are, so that you and other people can use the function
appropriately.
A static t
> IDE giving me the most appropriate options.
i'm under the updated impression that some Smalltalk IDEs can and do
look at the current AST of the system to give you proper completion,
rather than giving up because there aren't explicit types. so maybe
some such could be done some day for Clojure
I am in the same boat. However, even more than type safety, I miss my
IDE giving me the most appropriate options. I often have objects with
many call-backs, it's nice to be able to ctrl+space (in eclipse) and
quickly get a list available methods, pressing enter gives you some
skeleton code. Clo
http://www.mindview.net/WebLog/log-0025
I am not actually as in favor of untyped programming as this article
is, but I can see the points and I agree with most of them.
Chris
On Mar 10, 10:34 am, zoltar wrote:
> On Mar 10, 10:03 am, Vincent Foley wrote:
>
> > With Clojure you don't need to un
On Mar 10, 10:03 am, Vincent Foley wrote:
> With Clojure you don't need to understand Monads. And I don't think
> they're hard to understand, I think they're hard to come to grips with
> because of what they are capable of.
>
> Anyway, I hope you enjoy Clojure :)
Yes, I know, but I'd like to
With Clojure you don't need to understand Monads. And I don't think
they're hard to understand, I think they're hard to come to grips with
because of what they are capable of.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy Clojure :)
On Mar 10, 11:30 am, zoltar wrote:
> Thanks everyone! That gives me a lot more con
Thanks everyone! That gives me a lot more confidence in trying
Clojure. There is a certain freedom in not worrying about types. I
spend a lot of time in Java trying to get types and type hierarchies
right (especially generics). I haven't been doing a lot of unit
testing but I can see how that woul
I just jumped on Clojure five months ago, and I was a little lost
without types at first also. Then I've come to realize that types is
not as essential to bug-less software as I previously thought it was.
For the following reasons:
1) There's less "types" to begin with. I was a Java programmer, a
On Mar 10, 8:26 am, Vincent Foley wrote:
[...snip...]
> I'd like to
> mention that I'm also a fan of static typing and that to this day, I
> still don't know whether I prefer the freedom and flexibility of
> dynamic typing or the constraint and safety of static typing.
That dichotomy seems t
Here's my feeling on it (note that I am talking about languages from
the C family, not Haskell or ML).
1. Like Jason Wolfe said, the interactive REPL means that you can
manually test a function as soon as you're done writing it, so it's
easy to get feedback and know if something breaks.
2. The w
Timothy Pratley wrote:
> Jump on in! Just like with swimming the cold soon goes away. [...]
Bad analogy. In swimming, the cold returns about half an hour later :)
Gavin
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou
Jump on in! Just like with swimming the cold soon goes away. I found
that without types it was mentally taxing to understand many function
description. Something that helped me was collecting examples for
functions as I came across them:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Clojure_Programming/Examples/A
Hi Curtis,
I get my fuzzies from at least a few places:
1. bottom-up, interactive development. This means frequent testing
(at the REPL) of individual or small sets of functions, as I write
them.
2. assertions liberally sprinkled in key places.
3. multimethods that are difficult to call
48 matches
Mail list logo
