Am Sonntag, 15. Februar 2009 23:00 schrieb Peter Verswyvelen:
But if I understand it correctly, dependent types are a bit like that,
values and types can inter-operate somehow?
With dependent types, parameters of types can be values. So you can define a
data type List which is parameterized by
So IMO static typing is good, but it's only with functional programming that
it really shines.
You can go one step further: if you start using dependent types, you'll
see that it gets yet harder to get your program to type-check, and once
it does, you don't even bother to run it since it's so
This must be why there are no good compilers for dependently typed languages. :)
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Stefan Monnier
monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
So IMO static typing is good, but it's only with functional programming that
it really shines.
You can go one step further: if you
How practical is this dependent types thing? I hear a lot about this from
really clever people who are usually 10 years ahead of their time :)
Actually, back in the eighties when I was an assembly language hacker, I
didn't want to switch to Pascal or C since I found the types in those
languages
It's true that you can do program the type checker even more if you
have dependent types, but first you should look into what you can do
in Haskell. You can do a lot with type classes.
-- Lennart
2009/2/15 Peter Verswyvelen bugf...@gmail.com:
How practical is this dependent types thing? I
