> IMHO, type-less provides some resiliency. If you write code for a "string" any... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		mceldeen on Sept 27, 2020 \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: Things I Was Wrong About: Types > IMHO, type-less provides some resiliency. If you write code for a "string" anything that satisfies "stringiness" will still run just fine. Things like that are actually possible to do in a light weight way in FP languages and many of them are part of the stdlib. (PureScript happens to be my favorite example.) Many times it brings back the same feelings I had working in Ruby (which I also happen to love), but with the added confidence of a strong type system.

withinboredom on Sept 27, 2020 [–]

Scala is the closest I've gotten to FP at work. I'd love to play with Haskell/F#/etc in a professional setting, it just hasn't come up. Yet.

mceldeen on Sept 28, 2020 | [–]

Haskell family languages are something unique. I’ve never worked with Scala so I can’t say.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact