On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 17:16 -0400, John Dorsey wrote: > Quoth Tim Newsham: > > >Haskell programs with particular constraints (i.e. pure, total Haskell, > > >doesn't > > >primarily call gtk...) > > > > Yup, and that's a great thing that we should be evangelizing to > > all potential users. No need to go overboard and tell them that > > there will never be a crash, though.. The robustness claim is > > strong enough without embellishment. > > Pure, total Haskell programs may blow the stack. >
Total is unnecessary (with regards to the earlier comment, not the immediately preceding one.) > Just what is the concise, compelling, unembellished claim regarding > Haskell's inherent robustness? The concise, compelling, unembellished claim is: if your "pure*" Haskell program segfaults (or GPFs) then it's the implementation's fault, not yours. [unless your OS/Arch is stupid] This isn't unique to Haskell, every memory-safe language has it. * "pure" as in "100% pure Java" which has similar claims _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe