3 ms·
You can go really far in Haskell without specifying a single type. I haven't done so in a long while, but I'm pretty sure explicit types in Haskell are only nec
by tinco 6y ago
You can go really far in Haskell without specifying a single type. I haven't done so in a long while, but I'm pretty sure explicit types in Haskell are only necessary when you're trying to lock down an API or are outputting to something generic.
And how are the justifications appalling? He thinks annotations are a detriment to the expressiveness of the language, and Ruby prides itself on being expressive.
- jolux 6y agoLocking down an API is a critical feature of a type system, though, and beyond that, there are absolutely language extensions in Haskell that are not inferrable, in addition to polymorphic recursion. OCaml is the same way: the inference is very good, but not total. As for being a reduction to the expressiveness of the language, I think Haskell is proof that you can have annotations without reducing the expressiveness of the language. Type annotations in Haskell and Idris don’t even interfere with value-level syntax!