3 ms·
I would imagine something closer to rust in terms of base and then being able to put Haskell on top without loosing any safety guarantees. Or possibly even allo
by zaarn 7y ago
I would imagine something closer to rust in terms of base and then being able to put Haskell on top without loosing any safety guarantees. Or possibly even allowing an arbitrary type system as long as you can prove it's sound with the guarantees of the language.
- FrankHB 7y agoTypes are closed terms of contracts encoded in a language within specific phases. If you really need any guarantees without further knowledge shaped before running, then, besides the typechecking, the typing rules should also be programmable by users (rather than the language designer) for the sake of providing proofs. The base system must practically have no mandated static type systems at all, which is far from Rust.
- zaarn 7y agoI would disagree, you need a solid typesystem and then any other typesystem must prove to be a compatible superset.