Is The Little Typer the static typing book I've been waiting for? скачать в хорошем качестве

Is The Little Typer the static typing book I've been waiting for?

Dan Friedman's The Little Typer is coming out in September. I'm very excited about this book. It's about dependent types, and it claims to "demonstrate the most beautiful aspects". I can't wait! Dan Friedman's The Little Typer is coming out in September. I'm very excited about this book. It's about dependent types, and it claims to "demonstrate the most beautiful aspects". I can't wait! ►► Audio, Video, and Transcript available: https://lispcast.com/is-the-little-ty... ►► Subscribe on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/t... Transcript Is "The Little Typer" the functional programming with types book I've been waiting for? Hi, my name is Eric Normand and these are my thoughts on #functionalprogramming. There's a new little book coming out by Dan Friedman. The little books are books like "Little Schemer," "The Season Schemer," "The Reason Schemer," one more, "The Little Prover." These are all little books. It's a style of book that Dan Friedman writes. He always uses different co-authors. They're just teaching functional programming stuff and is very cool style. I have a book. I'm not going to bring it out. I have two of them, but it's like question and answer. You can cover up the answer. You ask yourself the question and then try to answer it. Then you see the answer. You get another question and then you try to answer it. One little bit at a time, you're developing the pathways, the thought pathways in your brain and your mind about how to reason about this code. In The Little Schemer, it's just scheme, very basic operations on lists and things like that. The other one I have is The Little Prover which is all about proofs. It's very cool. This new book is coming out. It looks like it's coming out in September, so almost here, and it's all about dependent types. One of the things I've been waiting for in typed languages is basically a structure and interpretation of computer programs. About static typing. SICP, that's an abbreviation for "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs," is a classic book teaching how Lisp works, how to implement a Lisp using an interpreter, a compiler. It's basically #computerscience through the eyes of Lisp. What's cool is it uses Scheme which one of the authors co-developed. Scheme is a really small concise language. It's perfect for this kind of thing. There's not a lot of fluff to get in the way. It's easy to implement Scheme. Because it's so simple, it was used as a language for exploring language features. In SICP, in the book, he started exploring, what if we add call by name instead of call by value, things like that, just messing with how things got evaluated and you get to explore how things work. Everything was so small and concise. You really got this sense of understanding the fundamentals without a lot of fluff around it. I feel like the typed world doesn't have anything like that. #Haskell is a big language compared to Scheme, has a lot of extensions. It has a lot of libraries. It has a lot of concepts in it. The syntax is big compared to Scheme. If you compare any language to Scheme, it's got a lot of syntax. I've never seen a book that's saying, what is the minimum type system we can have to start seeing benefits? What is the essence of it? It's great to have lots of features, want to understand that essence, but what is the essence? What is that thing that makes it important?