2 ms·
That was interesting, thank you for linking to it. At first he seemed to be reacting more to Odersky's book than to the language. I wonder if he had first ope
by pohl 14y ago
That was interesting, thank you for linking to it.
At first he seemed to be reacting more to Odersky's book than to the language. I wonder if he had first opened "Scala For The Impatient" how his reaction would be different.
Then he takes the odd tack of complaining about arcana in the Scala typesystem, and then suggests Haskell as a solution.
I get the impression that his love of dynamic typing had his mind made up before he even approached it.
- wonderzombie 14y agoWhat does Haskell have to do with dynamic typing? It's about as statically typed as they come. He's saying that if we really want a static typing system, maybe Haskell's flexible and powerful type system is the right approach.
- pohl 14y agoIt doesn't have anything to do with it. I probably phrased it badly because I was responding to two different paragraphs where Guido was talking about different things. You would be better served following the link to what he wrote and reading that directly.
- wonderzombie 14y agoI did read it, actually. :) That is why I was puzzled; he suggests Haskell as an alternative, and I thought that was a classy response, all things considered.
- jimbokun 14y ago"Then he takes the odd tack of complaining about arcana in the Scala typesystem, and then suggests Haskell as a solution." What's odd about it? He seems to be straightforwardly claiming that Haskell has a less confusing type system than Scala. I don't know whether that's true or false, but certainly don't see anything odd about it.