3 ms·
The validity of that statement depends on your historical perspective. To the modern eye, we see radically different type systems and conclude they are as diff
by ef4 13y ago
The validity of that statement depends on your historical perspective.
To the modern eye, we see radically different type systems and conclude they are as different as night and day.
But there was a time when the world was divided into people who thought anything higher-level than C or FORTRAN was stupid and impractical, and those who aspired to build more abstract languages. LISP was one of the rallying cries of the latter group. Haskell clearly falls into that group too.
- dysoco 13y agoHm, that makes some sense, the book might be old, that's why.
- andrewflnr 13y agoIt can't be that old, since according to Wikipedia Haskell itself is only about 23 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haskell_(programming_language) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haskell_(programming_language)
- j2kun 13y agoAnd before that, there were the people who thought anyone using an assembler was wasting precious CPU cycles, and something like FORTRAN was considered heresy.
- slurry 13y agoI' m not sure it makes a ton of sense either, even for an older book. OTOH, knowing a lot about programming language history/politics and knowing a lot about math and rigorous CS theory tend to be negatively correlated in my experience. I know I should be demonstrating that assertion with hard numbers, but in my defense I do know a lot about programming language history and politics. ;)