[Haskell-cafe] Is Haskell a Fanatic?
John Van Enk
vanenkj at gmail.com
Thu Dec 3 12:13:29 EST 2009
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it _is_.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:09 PM, John D. Earle <JohnDEarle at cox.net> wrote:
> See "[Haskell-cafe] Optimization with Strings ?" for background.
> Don Stewart wrote, "the guarantees of purity the type system provides are
> useful for verification purposes". My response to this is in theory. This
> is what caught my attention initially, but the language lacks polish and
> does not appear to be going in a direction where it shows signs where it
> will self-correct. It may even be beyond repair. I care about others and I
> don't want people to be misled.
> I am already well aware of the numbers. They do not impress me. I have
> written on this already. I have given Haskell the benefit of the doubt and
> said, What's wrong with being uncompromising? There is something wrong with
> it, if it has taken you off the path of truth. This is not uncompromising.
> This is something else. It is called fanaticism and this is the opinion that
> I have come to after due consideration.
> If you are going to argue your case, be constructive. Tell me how the type
> system is not flawed and how the Haskell language is rigorous. What proof do
> you have of this? Explain to me how Haskell has been merely uncompromising
> in its pursuit of perfection and did not manage to step over the threshold
> into fanaticism. Please remain on topic and on point.
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe