> 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 >
yes, that's the kind of answer i expected... that's the kind of thing you always see when reading something about haskell. but i guess there's arguments against... i'd like to make my opinion without just reading a post saying "it catches many errors". maybe this mailing list is not the right place to ask this question ;-) maybe i should ask on a lisp mailing list :) > > 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 the way it's divided is to remain purely functional. would it be bad if the side effects part was designed without keeping a pure functional language ? i see sometimes this kind of arg : it's easier to reason with a pure functional semantic. is this hold when you have to program a fair amount of imperative code in haskell? in fact my first question was not haskell centric but more general, like if i wanted to design a new language, not like if i wondered which language to choose. regards, mt _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
