3 ms·
> Strong typing means you'll spend your time waiting for the compiler to finish You can see this is false by running ghc in type-check-only mode ("-fno-code").
by tome 7y ago
> Strong typing means you'll spend your time waiting for the compiler to finish
You can see this is false by running ghc in type-check-only mode ("-fno-code"). Type checking is less than 10% of compile time. If Haskell takes a long time to compile it has nothing to do with types.
(and you mean "static typing")
- jstimpfle 7y agoI can't try out your suggestion right now because I've basically quit this ecosystem. But I would be careful about making any generalizations if the user can do significant computations at compile time. > (and you mean "static typing") Let's not split hairs. And I think "strong" is actually what I want to say (maybe better: "advanced" or "complex"). C also has "static typing" and I explicitly don't mean a simple type system like that.
- tome 7y ago> I would be careful about making any generalizations if the user can do significant computations at compile time. Indeed, and with some language extensions type checking may never terminate! But library code only has to be compiled once and if you write code that takes a long time to type check that's on you. Bog standard type safe Haskell 2010 code type checks in the blink of an eye. If your argument is "advanced type system features are too seductive for people to avoid" then I'd be more inclined to agree with you. But that's not what you said. > > (and you mean "static typing") > Let's not split hairs. Well, Python has strong typing and doesn't take long to compile. Perhaps you meant "some advanced features of Haskell's type system". If so I'd agree with you. But don't discourage people from Haskell by making false statements about it and then accuse me of splitting hairs.
- jstimpfle 7y agoOk, I appreciate the refinements, and I think we agree.