4 ms·
Haskell pushes [static typing] to some sort of logical limit. I think that distinction should go to Qi. Derived from Common Lisp, but with a type system that'
by mnemonicsloth 17y ago
Haskell pushes [static typing] to some sort of logical limit.
I think that distinction should go to Qi. Derived from Common Lisp, but with a type system that's Turing-complete.
http://www.lambdassociates.org/doc.htm http://www.lambdassociates.org/doc.htm
- Periodic 17y agoI believe GHC's type system is also Turing complete. As an example, you can implement BrainFuck in the GHC type system. I haven't looked over the details, but it looks promising. http://killersmurf.blogspot.com/2009/11/typefuck.html http://killersmurf.blogspot.com/2009/11/typefuck.html
- camccann 17y agoType-level computation is actually quite limited by default in GHC; it becomes quasi-Turing-complete only when using the UndecidableInstances extension, and even then it has a very shallow stack by default, though you can increase it if you want deeper recursion. If memory serves me, Oleg Kiselyov has a type-level implementation of the untyped lambda calculus, which is rather more pleasant than brainfuck.
- sreque 17y agoIsn't c++'s type system also turing complete via templates? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/189172/c-templates-turing-complete http://stackoverflow.com/questions/189172/c-templates-turing...
- eru 17y agoYes, but in the same sense that Brainfuck is..