On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 4:46 AM, Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 19 Apr 2008, at 5:02 AM, David MacIver wrote: > > > Independently of the rant... > > > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Jonathan Cast > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > But why do I need to jump through these hoops for a perfectly safe & > > > > commonly desired operation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's called a proof obligation. Haskell is not here to stop you from > > > jumping through hoops. In fact, it is here precisely to force you to > jump > > > through hoops. That's why it's called a bondage and discipline > language. > > > > > > > Surely it's there to lovingly assist you through the hoops? You can't > > just force people not to do the wrong thing and expect to get a good > > statically typed language out of it - you have to make it easier for > > them to do the right thing. > > > > I think going through the hoop is paramount in Haskell. That's why Haskell > is pure, for example, even though it (still) requires awkward code on > occasion. Haskell is certainly designed to make getting through the hoops > as easy as possible, but never by providing a general way around them. > (unsafePerformIO notwithstanding).
Sure. I'm just saying, it's more of a "Jump through this hoop and you shall have moist, delicious cake. And by the way, here's a leg up" set up. There are rewards for the hoop jumping, and assistance on the way there (which is more than can be said for a lot of languages which make you jump through hoops) :-) I think I might be stretching the analogy slightly. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
