|
|
|
|
|
|
by jamii
5663 days ago
|
|
|
Except for short scripts I generally start programming by figuring out what the data will look like. In a strongly typed language I have a built in language for describing my data. Of course the data structures change as the program evolves but I find it massively helpful to have that description up front. What's that quote? Something like: "Show me your algorithm and I will remain puzzled, but show me your data structure and I will be enlightened." |
|
|
To often, I think we're focused on the writing of code rather than the reading of code. Annotations sometimes seem repetitive, but repetitive can aid the readability.
Type inference might be a very nice compromise. Haskell allows you to annotate with type information, and that may provide more helpful errors, but usually it's optional. But people do it anyway, because type information tells a reader so much about the program.
If we just focus on writing, then clearly the programming language is meant only for unidirectional communication from a human to a computer. But if we focus on reading as well, then it becomes about humans communicating with other humans.