3 ms·

Any weaknesses with the Haskell "time" library have nothing to do with static types in particular nor the language in general. To stretch your analogy further

• dmitriid 9y ago
  > Any weaknesses with the Haskell "time" library have nothing to do with static types in particular nor the language in general. Hence, my original point: This goes to show that no amount of static typing can save you from implementing badly-designed software.
  • tome 9y ago
    If your point was literally "no amount of static typing can save you from implementing badly-designed software" then yes, that's correct and beyond challenge. I perceived a hint of "and therefore we may as well just use dynamic types" or "but proponents of static types are too ideological to accept this" in your subtext. I apologise if I was mistaken in my perception.
    • dmitriid 9y ago
      I have to admit, there was a hint of such subtext :)