3 ms·
Figuring out lifetimes in the face of Haskell's laziness sounds like a daunting prospect to me. Ultimately, there doesn't have to be a language to rule them al
by pdpi 8y ago
Figuring out lifetimes in the face of Haskell's laziness sounds like a daunting prospect to me.
Ultimately, there doesn't have to be a language to rule them all. Rust does things well that Haskell doesn't, and vice versa, and that's just fine.
- SomeHacker44 8y agoOh, for sure. Very focused languages are great. Haskell (well, GHC) just seems to be a great resource for trying language features out. No argument that laziness could be an issue, but IO generally has to resolve thunks anyway to occur so it may not be an insurmountable one. Note that I do not know particularly much about GHC internals.
- garmaine 8y agoNot really, as the point of affine types is that this is pushed into the type system. It has the semantics “if a thing is produced, it is consumed at most once.” I don’t see how this is any more difficult than, or really any different from regular Haskell programming.