3 ms·
There’s not really any reason you couldn’t have a language that eventually offer almost all of haskell’s compile-level safety features, while keeping the vice g
by setr 8y ago
There’s not really any reason you couldn’t have a language that eventually offer almost all of haskell’s compile-level safety features, while keeping the vice grip, is there? Most of haskell’s benefits comes from its “sufficiently advanced compiler”, without reliance on gc benefits, I would think. Other than laziness, is haskell-the-language actually that dependent on a gc?
- m_mueller 8y agoA language is not just a set of possible semantics, it‘s also an ecosystem that herds people towards using it in a certain way. If that ecosystem breaks down under certain conditions the language becomes unusable. I think that aspect of language design is often underappreciated and maybe the main reason why we don’t have (and maybe will never) a one language to rule them all.