[Haskell] Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why functional programming matters
isaacdupree at charter.net
Sat Jan 26 21:38:36 EST 2008
Derek Elkins wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 20:49 -0500, Isaac Dupree wrote:
>> Michael Reid wrote:
>>> power of Haskell's type system makes it feel like you are programming in
>>> a dynamic language to some degree, yet all of it is type-checked, and
>>> that is just *really* cool.
>> to some degree, (in current Haskell compilers), it *is* more like a
>> dynamic than a static language: except when optimized away, values of
>> all types are represented by a pointer to their actual value. (this
>> helps with parametric polymorphism and laziness (take :: Int -> [a] ->
>> [a]).) (at least this is a difference compared to C++)
> Boxing is orthogonal to dynamic/static. You can have boxing in
> statically typed languages, e.g. Haskell, Java, C#
yes I know, although we are talking about communicating to people who
don't necessarily know as much as we do.
> and you can have
> unboxed values in dynamically typed languages.
really? Sure that's possible as an optimization, but I thought that to
explicitly specify that would require a known static type. Or perhaps
the bit-"tagging" by which some Scheme implementations are able to hold
small integers without a pointer (IIRC)?
More information about the Haskell-Cafe