11 ms·
Any. (Maybe not something as simple C or Go, and nothing like Agda, but something like ML or Java or C++.) There is something wrong with the grandparent post,
by SamReidHughes 13y ago
Any. (Maybe not something as simple C or Go, and nothing like Agda, but something like ML or Java or C++.) There is something wrong with the grandparent post, because it's not making an argument that distinguishes Haskell from other statically typed languages.
- dllthomas 13y agoOk, well, for what it's worth I think that Haskell typing is equivalent in strength to ML. It's absolutely stronger than pre-generics Java; possibly isomorphic now. Roughly isomorphic to C++ with templates. In Haskell and ML, inference and clean syntax for type constructors makes it substantially easier to apply that power legibly (and structural pattern matching is a nice bonus). Monads let you extend that power to statements instead of just expressions.
- ibotty 13y agono, haskell (ghc) has many extensions that extend hindley-milner by a great degree.
- dllthomas 13y agoYes, I wasn't trying to make any strong claims of theoretical equivalence. In my experience with Haskell and OCaml and much more limited with SML, I've not found myself wanting to express a lot in those languages that I'd have been able to in Haskell, types-wise. Remember that the original question was "How much of Haskell's benefit do you think it provides that simply having static typing doesn't provide?" I should perhaps have been clearer.