On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 think there is a difference between 'many people have done it this way' and 'it was an appropriate choice to do so'. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
