By reading John Hughes's paper "Why Functional Programming Matters" it is easy to understand why lazy evaluation is great, I don't see that kind of benefits with lazy typing.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Henning Thielemann <lemm...@henning-thielemann.de> wrote: > > I like to apply for the quote of the week. :-) > > "If Haskell is great because of its laziness, > then Python must be even greater, > since it is lazy at the type level." > > Dynamically typed languages only check types if they have to, that is if > expressions are actually computed. Does this prove that laziness at type > level as in Python is a great thing or does this prove that laziness at the > value level as in Haskell is a bad thing or does this prove nothing? > > Hope for controversial discussion ... > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > -- Federico Mastellone Computer Science Engineer - ITBA ".. there are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." Tony Hoare, 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
