[munksbeer]

>My experience is that there's a correlation between powerful type systems and the property that once your program compiles, it's correct. Compiles == correct is rarely true in C or JavaScript. It's often true in Haskell and Rust.

I find this staggeringly hard to believe. Most bugs are logic errors. How does Rust or Haskell prevent these?

[mightybyte]

Haskell gives you quite a powerful set of tools for constraining and reasoning about your program's behavior. For instance, its ability to define pure functions and control side effects is a very powerful tool for preventing certain classes of bugs. Dereferencing invalid pointer locations and out of bounds array lookups are large classes of bugs in mainstream languages that Haskell basically eliminates entirely. It's not at all the same thing as what you get from the type systems in languages like Java, C++, etc. You really have to try it to appreciate it.

[yakshaving_jgt]

> Most bugs are logic errors.

Are they? IME most bugs are type errors.

Or rather, IME most bugs are logic errors only because I've excluded the possibility of type errors by using a sophisticated type system.

[munksbeer]

Most of my bugs are logic errors. I write Java. Your comment seems to imply that moving to Rust or Haskell would make a correct program if it compiles.

[yakshaving_jgt]

I don't think porting your program to Haskell would make your program correct.

I think porting your program to Haskell would make all of your bugs logic errors, rather than only most of them.