3 ms·
well, they still can be compared at some level. For example, haskell type checker is turing complete, i.e. you can do type level computation (see http://www.has
by ithkuil 13y ago
well, they still can be compared at some level. For example, haskell type checker is turing complete, i.e. you can do type level computation (see http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Type_arithmetic http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Type_arithmetic)
- colanderman 13y agoturing complete, i.e. you can do type level computation Turing completeness → computation, but the converse is not valid (i.e. computation → Turing completeness is not necessarily true). e.g. GADTs allow for some amount of type-level computation, but they do not in and of themselves form a Turing complete system. Alas, looking at your link, it does seem that Haskell's type system is sadly Turing-complete.
- tome 13y agoOnly if you use some extensions. http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Type_SK http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Type_SK
- ithkuil 13y agocorrect, "turing complete, i.e. you can do any possible computation at the type level." I don't know if I feel joy or sadness, but I have the feeling that if type level computation is allowed, then it's better to be turing complete than falling short while giving the illusion to be useful. As for the practical applications of a powerful type system, I know about this (but I would be interested into finding more examples, as most of the information about that is very theoretical): http://hackage.haskell.org/package/HList http://hackage.haskell.org/package/HList (http://userpages.uni-koblenz.de/~laemmel/TheEagle/dl/KiselyovLS04.pdf http://userpages.uni-koblenz.de/~laemmel/TheEagle/dl/Kiselyo...)