[Haskell-cafe] Re: [Haskell] pros and cons of static typing and
side effects ?
markc at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Thu Aug 11 07:43:48 EDT 2005
The previous comments make sense to me. The lots-of-unit-tests aspect of
static typing I find really useful, far exceeding any BDSM cost. If I'm
engaging in exploratory programming, the type inference combined with the
ability to write 'error "armadillo"' in stubs for values I can't be
bothered to generate right now really works conveniently for me.
Although I agree that lots-of-lists is very handy in early prototyping, I
don't feel at all constrained by using homogeneous lists, although very
occasionally I may use existential types, and the way I write programmes
is exactly to think in advance and then write the code: to do otherwise
just wastes my time because then the code doesn't work in some confusing
way and I have to do that thinking I postponed to figure out why - or, if
it does work, I have to think about it to satisfy myself that appearances
I'm not quite sure what macros would look like in Haskell, but I've not
missed those either. In Lisp I would tend to use them for things that
involved changing the values of variables, but that's not really a
Haskellish thing to be doing anyway. Mind you, I learned Lisp after
learning ML, so to some extent I was thinking in ML when writing in Lisp.
Alas, dead-tree versions of "On Lisp" are hard to come by affordably, but
I am now trying to learn more about what I might have missed about Lisp.
I find monads useful because I find it a helpful debugging aid for
functions to be quite clear about what side effects they may want to
I posted this to Haskell-Cafe instead of the main Haskell list, because
I'm rambling a bit. Puzzled Haskell-Cafe readers may like to check
More information about the Haskell-Cafe