[Haskell-cafe] Is Haskell a Fanatic?
John D. Earle
JohnDEarle at cox.net
Thu Dec 3 12:09:09 EST 2009
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.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe