[Haskell] pros and cons of static typing and side effects ?

Bulat Ziganshin bulatz at HotPOP.com
Thu Aug 11 02:25:14 EDT 2005

Hello mt,

Thursday, August 11, 2005, 12:40:39 AM, you wrote:

m> [thnk 4 the previous answers !]

m> Good [morning, afternoon, night],

m> I try to better understand some things... maybe you can help me.
m> Id' like to know what are the pros and cons of (not) having static typing.
m> Same question for (direct support of) side effects.

m> To help you to find answers, here I quote this page :
m>           http://paulgraham.com/lispfaq1.html

m> [Most hackers I know have been disappointed by the ML family. Languages with 
m> static typing would be more suitable if programs were something you thought 
m> of in advance, and then merely translated into code. But that's not how 
m> programs get written.

m> The inability to have lists of mixed types is a particularly crippling 
m> restriction. It gets in the way of exploratory programming (it's convenient 
m> early on to represent everything as lists), and it means you can't have real 
m> macros.]

i can quote someone from this list: "if haskell compiler allow my
program to be compiled then i know that there is no more errors in
it". static typing is just an instrument which catches much more
programmers' errors. static typing don't allow more programs tobe
compiled - conversely, it prohibits a part of programs/techniques. but
if you want to WORK, not hack - that is a right way

m> Same question for (direct support of) side effects.

it's just because Haskell is a lazy language. this rises expresivness
and strongly divides program to two parts - without side effects and
with side effects

Best regards,
 Bulat                            mailto:bulatz at HotPOP.com

More information about the Haskell mailing list