3 ms·

This reminds me of this quote from [1]: "In this mythical, not yet-existing, but clearly on-the-horizon "Haskell", you'll be able to choose how much safety you

This reminds me of this quote from [1]: "In this mythical, not yet-existing, but clearly on-the-horizon "Haskell", you'll be able to choose how much safety you want. You'll have "knobs" for increasing or decreasing compile-time checks for any property and invariant you desire." It might not be "Haskellish" or safe in the way that I or some others are used to, but it does seem to be a clear increase in the expressiveness of the language. [1] http://axisofeval.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-lisp-is-big-hack-and-haskell-is.html http://axisofeval.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-lisp-is-big-hack-...

fusiongyro 14y ago
Until "expressiveness" has a defined meaning, I encourage us all to stop using it to describe programming languages. We just beat each other up with it without really saying anything meaningful. Programs that were right before continue to be right. Programs that were wrong before continue to be wrong. What's changed is that programs which were wrong before can now be wrong at runtime rather than at compile time. The parts of the program that don't explode now wouldn't have exploded before. So I don't think that really changes the expressiveness, whatever that means. I think this change will do wonders for Haskell marketing but I don't think it will have much effect on the day-to-day lives of Haskell programmers.