Paul Rubin a écrit : > Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Haskell - as other languages using type-inference like OCaml - are in >>a different category. Yes, I know, don't say it, they are statically >>typed - but it's mostly structural typing, not declarative >>typing. Which makes them much more usable IMHO. > > > Some users in fact recommend writing an explicit type signature for > every Haskell function, which functions sort of like a unit test.
Stop here. explicit type signature == declarative static typing != unit test. > That doesn't bloat the code up noticibly. The conciseness of those > languages comes more from polymorphism and convenient ways of writing > and using higher-order functions, than from type inference. Type inference is certainly helpful for genericity. > >>Still, static typechecking is not a garantee against runtime >>errors. Nor against logical errors. > > > Right, however the reality is it does seem to prevent a lot of > surprises. I have few "surprises" with typing in Python. Very few. Compared to the flexibility and simplicity gained from a dynamism that couldn't work with static typing - even using type inference -, I don't see it a such a wonderful gain. At least in my day to day work. > >>I'd have to see a concrete use case. And I'd need much more real-world >>experience with some ML variant, but this is not something I can >>expect to happen in a near future - it's difficult enough to convince >>PHBs that Python is fine. > > > Monad Reader #7 has an article about some Wall street company using ML: > > http://www.haskell.org/sitewiki/images/0/03/TMR-Issue7.pdf > > see the article by Yaron Minsky. Sorry, I don't live near Wall Street !-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
