Programming Languages

1186 readers

1 users here now

Hello!

This is the current Lemmy equivalent of https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammingLanguages/.

The content and rules are the same here as they are over there. Taken directly from the /r/ProgrammingLanguages overview:

This community is dedicated to the theory, design and implementation of programming languages.

Be nice to each other. Flame wars and rants are not welcomed. Please also put some effort into your post.

This isn't the right place to ask questions such as "What language should I use for X", "what language should I learn", and "what's your favorite language". Such questions should be posted in /c/learn_programming or /c/programming.

This is the right place for posts like the following:

"Check out this new language I've been working on!"
"Here's a blog post on how I implemented static type checking into this compiler"
"I want to write a compiler, where do I start?"
"How does the Java compiler work? How does it handle forward declarations/imports/targeting multiple platforms/?"
"How should I test my compiler? How are other compilers and interpreters like gcc, Java, and python tested?"
"What are the pros/cons of ?"
"Compare and contrast vs. "
"Confused about the semantics of this language"
"Proceedings from PLDI / OOPSLA / ICFP / "

See /r/ProgrammingLanguages for specific examples

Related online communities

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

armchair_progamer

Type inference was a mistake (borretti.me)

submitted 7 months ago by SuperFola to c/programming_languages

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Windex007 @snowe

Yes. Type-inference typically *knows better than me* what the types should be.

I frequently ask the compiler what code I need to write next by leaving a gap in my implementation and letting the compiler spit out the type of the missing section.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Can you explain why you wouldn't know what a type should be?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Windex007

lexer :: Parser LexState (Vector Int, Vector Token)
lexer = do
(positions, tokens) <- _ nextPositionedToken
...

What goes where the underscore is in the above snippet?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I've never used Haskell, so I can barely read this as-is.

But sure: I have no idea, and I expect that's your point.

You as the writer, you don't know either? What if I could understand Haskell, is there an option to communicate that information to me? Or is the argument that nobody but the compiler and god need know? That having an awareness of the types has no value?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Windex007
> You as the writer, you don’t know either?
Not until the compiler tells me.

> Or is the argument that nobody but the compiler and god need know? That having an awareness of the types has no value?
No, I want to know, because knowing the types has value. If the compiler has inference, it can tell me, if not, it can't.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

I recognize that truly functional languages are their own beasts, with tons of amazing features provided by a ton of academic backing.

I will absolutely concede that I can't speak to them with a shred of competence. I don't know about the trade-offs and relative value propositions for pretty much anything in that space, let alone specifically w/ explicit typing.