• Windex007@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’ve never used Haskell, so I can barely read this as-is.

    But sure: I have no idea, and I expect that’s your point.

    You as the writer, you don’t know either? What if I could understand Haskell, is there an option to communicate that information to me? Or is the argument that nobody but the compiler and god need know? That having an awareness of the types has no value?

    • John@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      @Windex007
      > You as the writer, you don’t know either?
      Not until the compiler tells me.

      > Or is the argument that nobody but the compiler and god need know? That having an awareness of the types has no value?
      No, I want to know, because knowing the types has value. If the compiler has inference, it can tell me, if not, it can’t.

      • Windex007@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I recognize that truly functional languages are their own beasts, with tons of amazing features provided by a ton of academic backing.

        I will absolutely concede that I can’t speak to them with a shred of competence. I don’t know about the trade-offs and relative value propositions for pretty much anything in that space, let alone specifically w/ explicit typing.