Sometimes you hear people say "most error are not type errors". The thing is: yes they are. It's just that most people are not used to thinking of those errors as type errors.
In LISP you can use macros and simple parses to check for certain types of code at compile time and you can check the callstack to make sure properties keep, sometimes it seems easier to grok that than complex type systems. I have to say that Haskell is pretty nice, but it sometimes you could build inflexible code. Like its hard to know before hand if you want a pure function or a functor or a maybed function and if you get it wrong you could end up rewriting huge amounts of your code although when run it will most likely work at the first time.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Agreed. I'd like to just add one thing:
Sometimes you hear people say "most error are not type errors". The thing is: yes they are. It's just that most people are not used to thinking of those errors as type errors.
Type systems can address all sorts of problems. From What To Know Before Debating Type Systems:
In LISP you can use macros and simple parses to check for certain types of code at compile time and you can check the callstack to make sure properties keep, sometimes it seems easier to grok that than complex type systems. I have to say that Haskell is pretty nice, but it sometimes you could build inflexible code. Like its hard to know before hand if you want a pure function or a functor or a maybed function and if you get it wrong you could end up rewriting huge amounts of your code although when run it will most likely work at the first time.