<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Sebastian,</div><div><br></div><div>It helps if you think of John as having already won in this discussion, since he succeeded in getting a lengthy high-noise emotional reaction from us. :-)</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Greg</div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On Dec 4, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:09 PM, John D. Earle <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:JohnDEarle@cox.net">JohnDEarle@cox.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
See "[Haskell-cafe] Optimization with Strings ?" for background.<br>
<br>
Don Stewart wrote, "the guarantees of purity the type system provides are extremely<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I honestly don't understand what your beef is. Could you explain what you mean with some specifics? In what way does Haskell lack polish? What makes you think it's not going in a direction where it will self correct?</div>
<div>What's the "path of truth" and in what way is Haskell not on it? </div><div><br></div><div>I would very much appreciate if you could try to explain what you mean using specific examples. I read the other thread and the post of yours didn't really seem to make much sense to me there either.</div>
</div><br>-- <br>Sebastian Sylvan<br>
_______________________________________________<br>Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>