3 ms·
> ...I don't see myself using much Haskell precisely because its tools for modularity seem limited. > Dynamic languages are naturally more modular Why is that
by sfvisser 13y ago
> ...I don't see myself using much Haskell precisely because its tools for modularity seem limited.
> Dynamic languages are naturally more modular
Why is that? I'm pretty convinced pure and especially lazy languages allow for great modularity.
See http://augustss.blogspot.nl/2011/05/more-points-for-lazy-evaluation-in.html http://augustss.blogspot.nl/2011/05/more-points-for-lazy-eva... for an interesting view on this.
- taeric 13y agoI would think it is because of how "modules" can effectively be "bolted" on top of existing things quite easily. Consider putting a new "module" on a bicycle. If you were doing it statically, it would have to have the screws in the proper place to be able to attach as it needs. Dynamically, however, you just use a zip tie to hold your piece onto the bike. To be sure, if you buy a nice bike, many of the common attachments have "static" points where things can be added. If you want to place a holder for a phone, however, you are much more likely to do something that is much more adaptable at fitting things on. becomes much more easy to bolt on funct