4 ms·

> A polymorphic enough strongly typed language is no longer strongly typed. Oof

• josephcsible 5y ago
  Ehh, that's a bit overblown. In particular, even if you actually did make the weird list-number, you'd end up with a type error as soon as you tried to use it somewhere expecting a regular number.
  • mbwgh 5y ago
    Just implement `Num a => Num [a]`, easy.
    • josephcsible 5y ago
      That would let you make the instance only be a little bit unlawful instead of totally unlawful, but I don't see how it would affect the type errors you'd get.
• asplake 5y ago
  Any sufficiently polymorphic strongly typed language is indistinguishable from Javascript
• valyagolev 5y ago
  for an opposite take https://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/dynamic-languages-are-static-languages/ https://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/dynamic-lan...
• thewakalix 5y ago
  That’s not what “strongly typed” means, though.
• dmitriid 5y ago
  "Haskell is a dynamically-typed, interpreted language" https://aphyr.com/posts/342-typing-the-technical-interview https://aphyr.com/posts/342-typing-the-technical-interview