Hello mt, Thursday, August 11, 2005, 12:40:39 AM, you wrote:
m> [thnk 4 the previous answers !] m> Good [morning, afternoon, night], m> I try to better understand some things... maybe you can help me. m> Id' like to know what are the pros and cons of (not) having static typing. m> Same question for (direct support of) side effects. m> To help you to find answers, here I quote this page : m> http://paulgraham.com/lispfaq1.html m> [Most hackers I know have been disappointed by the ML family. Languages with m> static typing would be more suitable if programs were something you thought m> of in advance, and then merely translated into code. But that's not how m> programs get written. m> The inability to have lists of mixed types is a particularly crippling m> restriction. It gets in the way of exploratory programming (it's convenient m> early on to represent everything as lists), and it means you can't have real m> macros.] i can quote someone from this list: "if haskell compiler allow my program to be compiled then i know that there is no more errors in it". static typing is just an instrument which catches much more programmers' errors. static typing don't allow more programs tobe compiled - conversely, it prohibits a part of programs/techniques. but if you want to WORK, not hack - that is a right way m> Same question for (direct support of) side effects. it's just because Haskell is a lazy language. this rises expresivness and strongly divides program to two parts - without side effects and with side effects -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
