[Haskell-cafe] Is Haskell a Fanatic?
John Van Enk
vanenkj at gmail.com
Thu Dec 3 12:13:44 EST 2009
*flawed, that is
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:13 PM, John Van Enk <vanenkj at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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