> Your code becomes less peculiar to you and more in line with the peculiarities of the language as it's used by most people. Shallow enough? Don't let an allergy to postmodernism become an allergy to a turned phrase.
I'm objecting to the attempt at sloganization as if witty/clever phrases mean anything. FTR, I also think this is a bad thing in FP. My "favorite" example being "if it compiles, it works" (or similar).
> Not sure what the rest of your comment has to do with my point, which was about, if you like, the pragmatics of programming.
My point, though perhaps somewhat obscure, was that eliminating a lot (i.e. "classes") of bugs up front (e.g. by exploiting parametric polymorphism) means that you spend less time fixing bugs... which means that you spend more time getting things done.
(Now, the jury is still out on whether static type checking leads to more productivity than dynamic type checking, but given that you're interested in Go, I'm guessing you're probably leaning towards 'static' anyway.)
> Not concerned with the space of programs that type check. Insufferable haskellers...
I used Haskell (and ML, you'll notice) as an example, but if you're not concerned with the space of programs that type check -- why are you even using a statically checked language? Surely you'd be infinitely more productive in a dynamically checked language? I'm saying you should be concerned and demand concern from the designers of your language.
I'm objecting to the attempt at sloganization as if witty/clever phrases mean anything. FTR, I also think this is a bad thing in FP. My "favorite" example being "if it compiles, it works" (or similar).
> Not sure what the rest of your comment has to do with my point, which was about, if you like, the pragmatics of programming.
My point, though perhaps somewhat obscure, was that eliminating a lot (i.e. "classes") of bugs up front (e.g. by exploiting parametric polymorphism) means that you spend less time fixing bugs... which means that you spend more time getting things done.
(Now, the jury is still out on whether static type checking leads to more productivity than dynamic type checking, but given that you're interested in Go, I'm guessing you're probably leaning towards 'static' anyway.)
> Not concerned with the space of programs that type check. Insufferable haskellers...
I used Haskell (and ML, you'll notice) as an example, but if you're not concerned with the space of programs that type check -- why are you even using a statically checked language? Surely you'd be infinitely more productive in a dynamically checked language? I'm saying you should be concerned and demand concern from the designers of your language.