3 ms·
> These systems make it easy(er) to model concepts in a mathematical way I feel this is largely a lie. The type system is still a crippled language that is als
by jstimpfle 4y ago
> These systems make it easy(er) to model concepts in a mathematical way
I feel this is largely a lie. The type system is still a crippled language that is also incompatible with the runtime language. It possible to do some very specific things in it, but does it help you describe a system's data flows? Memory allocation patterns? GUI layout engine?
I think the solution is: Just use regular code, it works best. Use types to describe interfaces. Simple types, because with anything else you're painting yourself in a corner.
- feanaro 4y agoI think it is largely not, though it's not something that is a magical solution to all modelling problems. It probably depends on the domain you're solving problems in, but on the other hand, I've written CRUD applications in Haskell successfully and would characterize it as a nice experience. > It possible to do some very specific things in it, but does it help you describe a system's data flows? Memory allocation patterns? GUI layout engine? I feel you're underselling quite a bit when you say very specific things, but again, perhaps this depends on the problem domain, your thinking style, your programming style or some other undetermined factor. Out of the things you mention, I would say a definite yes to system's data flows, weaker yes for GUI layout and no to memory allocation patterns, because that is a known weak point.