[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 mailing list