Hacker News Reader

I thought so too, but then I used OCaml and found myself very productive without explicitly annotating everything compared to Haskell. It gives you the speed of dynamic languages with the correctness of a static language. The LSP should be able to annotate for you.

The cases where I think it is necessary to annotate, I can do so.

View on HN

> cases where I think it is necessary to annotate

Worth noting that that can be reactive, too. If an type checking error message is confusing or insufficiently localized, pinning down a few things around it can clarify.

As tome says, though, that can be a thing in Haskell too. There exist situations in Haskell where the compiler cannot figure out the types for you, but they're not most code.

I'm curious about what you mean by 'compared to Haskell'. You don't have to annotate everything in Haskell either, do you?

You don't, but the convention in Haskell is that you do. The linters I used complain for example if you don't annotate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com