<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="/www/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>alpheccar's blog - tag cgi</title>
    <link>http://www.alpheccar.org</link>
    <language>en</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <description>science and freedom</description>
    
    <item>
      <title>Preventing irreversible updates from HTTP GET with types and class</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[<p>If you're a functional programmer or an Haskell coder then you won't learn anything new from this post. But, if you're learning functional programming or if you're just wondering why static typing is useful then you can continue reading. People from the dynamically typed language world generally claim that you do not need static typing. It is too annoying and you can rely on unitary testing for similar results. I'd just like to show on a very simple example that static typing is not only very useful but also very convenient. Static typing and unitary testing have both their use.</p> <p><a href="http://www.alpheccar.org/en/posts/show/73">Read More...</a></p>
]]>
      </description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:02:57 -0500</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:68</guid>
      <author>webmaster@alpheccar.org</author>
      <link>http://www.alpheccar.org/en/posts/show/73</link>
      <comments>http://www.alpheccar.org/en/posts/show/73#comments</comments>
      <category>functional programming</category>
      <category>haskell</category>
      <category>cgi</category>
      <category>database</category>
      <category>web</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
