[Haskell-cafe] Is Haskell a Fanatic?
sebastian.sylvan at gmail.com
Fri Dec 4 13:00:37 EST 2009
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:09 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.
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?
What's the "path of truth" and in what way is Haskell not on it?
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe