|
|
|
|
|
|
by jonnytran
3466 days ago
|
|
|
That looks interesting. Is there an analogous Haskell or OCaml feature to F#'s active patterns? Regardless, I still think it's a moot point. I understand that static typing can be great for catching bugs sooner rather than later. But doing that takes time and work. Basically the thing that all static typing advocates neglect is that sometimes I just don't want to put that time and work in up front. Most people would agree they'd want to put that work in before shipping their software to millions of people, but most code is only used by a few people a few times. The line between development and production is blurry. Most of the time, I would much rather run code that mostly works _now_ and has tons of bugs than have to put in more work. Even if it's not much more work, it's still not nothing. I own my computer and tell it what to do. But a compiler rejecting my code b/c there _might_ be an edge case that has an error is unacceptable. Which is why I would love static typing if you could simply turn it off. I know of some research in gradual typing, but I've never seen it in any mainstream languages. |
|
|
Based on a quick web search, the equivalent of F#'s active patterns in Haskell appears to be view patterns...
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ViewPatterns
...and the closest I found for OCaml was polymorphic variants...
https://realworldocaml.org/v1/en/html/variants.html
>"I know of some research in gradual typing, but I've never seen it in any mainstream languages."
When you say gradual typing, do you mean optional type hinting like you can find in Python 3, or something else?
https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html