On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Chas Emerick <cemer...@snowtide.com> wrote: > > Nicolas, just out of curiosity, what program (or class of program(s)) are you > interested in that "can't be typed in Haskell"? I'm always interested in > seeing examples of static typing preventing the implementation of certain > classes of programs, insofar as such things are an antidote to my tidal > fascination with statically-typed languages. > > - Chas
Mainly DSLs that do not fit in the Haskell type systems and type checkers for them. Also : www.cse.chalmers.se/~wouter/Publications/ThePowerOfPi.pdf (Warning: advertisement) Another thing is the fact that writing big pattern matching of a closed type does not work for the kind of program I do. (At some time, we developed a tool to assemble a big pattern matching from fragments in different files. It just feels better to organise your program by theme, rather than by functions... I really appreciate having protocols, multimethods and case/cond and to be able to work at this 3 levels. Of course, all that can be done in Haskell by tricking the type system. (For example type classes + forall + GADTs and type families). But you spend more time tricking the type system than coding.) But I would really love static typing that is as convenient as dynamic typing (see the paper above for details about why dependant types are great). (Warning: advertisement) Nicolas. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
