3 ms·
> since to my understanding, there's quite a bit of overlap, to where you can write arbitrary prolog in Haskell or Scala's type systems. Where did you get that
by jjtheblunt 1y ago
> since to my understanding, there's quite a bit of overlap, to where you can write arbitrary prolog in Haskell or Scala's type systems.
Where did you get that idea? (I’m not seeing how that would work.)
- chuckadams 1y agoRepeating verbatim a post on a Haskell forum, someone talking about the Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence and saying "you can write arbitrary Prolog in Haskell types". Seems most advanced type systems are already Turing-complete and based on unification matching, so I didn't see much reason to disbelieve it, though I realize that might be a little oversold. Obviously it doesn't look like Prolog, and you don't necessarily even want the Turing-completeness in your type system -- or at least not to have to rely on it anyway. But I still think the parallels are clear enough that it'd make for a pretty relevant piece of a course in logic programming.
- pyrale 1y agoThere is a blog post by Aphyr doing just that (typing the technical interview), which is well worth a read. That being said, it is a very small subset of what prolog does, and it has little practical use beyond writing a blog post.