Henning Thielemann writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henning Thielemann writes:
> ?? Mathematica and MatLab are just the opposite of statically safe
> programming.
Is this a religious statement, quite popular in our Church of Functionalism,
or you mean something concrete by that, and if yes, then what?
I meant that these languages, which are the main products of Wolfram and
MathWorks, respectively, are untyped or at least dynamically typed, and
thus are certainly not the appropriate tools for reliable development and
maintenance. However, I see that Jon Harrop claimed statical type safety
only for OCaml and Haskell, and functional design and high productivity
for Mathematica and MatLab et.al.
Well, Henning, it is quite a statement: "certainly not the appropriate tools
for reliable development and maintenance". Tell that to those legions of
people who made dozens of thousands of programs in Lisp (or Scheme), in
Smalltalk, etc. And now in Erlang...
I believe, and I teach that static typing is a good thing, but, please, you
are too young yet for sectarism...
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
