4 ms·

"Ad-hoc" seems subjective but to me it feels very carefully thought out. And while I've found the benchmarks to be accurate, I more importantly mean myself (and

"Ad-hoc" seems subjective but to me it feels very carefully thought out. And while I've found the benchmarks to be accurate, I more importantly mean myself (and many others I know) being easily able to get high performance code when we need it. My second paragraph was only a personal take on what works for me, so YMMV, but nevertheless: I'm not arguing against static type systems in principle, but these are practical concerns rather than theoretical ones. I don't know of a mainstream static language that supports a fully dynamic REPL (Haskell's isn't great) and casting back and forth to `interface{}`, `Object`, or `Any` everywhere is a huge overhead compared to duck typing. I look forward to a future language solving those issues, but that's not the case today.

lmm 10y ago
> "Ad-hoc" seems subjective but to me it feels very carefully thought out. I guess I'd like to see a simple formalism. > myself (and many others I know) being easily able to get high performance code when we need it. That's true for a lot of languages. It doesn't make it Rust-level. > I'm not arguing against static type systems in principle, but these are practical concerns rather than theoretical ones. I don't know of a mainstream static language that supports a fully dynamic REPL (Haskell's isn't great) and casting back and forth to `interface{}`, `Object`, or `Any` everywhere is a huge overhead compared to duck typing. I look forward to a future language solving those issues, but that's not the case today. Shrug, not my experience. I don't know what you mean by "fully generic", but I've been very happy with the Scala REPL - I've never once thought "this would be easy in the Python REPL but I can't do it because of the type system". Casting is indeed a big overhead if you're doing it everywhere, but my experience is the cases where you need it are extremely rare.
bjz_ 10y ago
What do you feel is lacking from Haskell's REPL?

lmm 10y ago

> "Ad-hoc" seems subjective but to me it feels very carefully thought out. I guess I'd like to see a simple formalism. > myself (and many others I know) being easily able to get high performance code when we need it. That's true for a lot of languages. It doesn't make it Rust-level. > I'm not arguing against static type systems in principle, but these are practical concerns rather than theoretical ones. I don't know of a mainstream static language that supports a fully dynamic REPL (Haskell's isn't great) and casting back and forth to `interface{}`, `Object`, or `Any` everywhere is a huge overhead compared to duck typing. I look forward to a future language solving those issues, but that's not the case today. Shrug, not my experience. I don't know what you mean by "fully generic", but I've been very happy with the Scala REPL - I've never once thought "this would be easy in the Python REPL but I can't do it because of the type system". Casting is indeed a big overhead if you're doing it everywhere, but my experience is the cases where you need it are extremely rare.

bjz_ 10y ago

What do you feel is lacking from Haskell's REPL?