4 ms·
Given that not even basic functional programming has become popular yet, I can't see dependent types being widely adopted for decades. The learning curve for us
by seanwilson 12y ago
Given that not even basic functional programming has become popular yet, I can't see dependent types being widely adopted for decades. The learning curve for using dependent types is incredibly steep and capturing interesting properties in types inevitably requires you to understand and write tricky maths proofs.
- solomatov 12y ago>Given that not even basic functional programming has become popular yet. It's already popular. All the mainstream programming languages already support it.
- seanwilson 12y agoWhich languages would you say this was true for? I wouldn't say that was the case until there is wide support for algebraic data types, type inference, pattern matching and immutable data. I see more languages allowing functions as parameters, basic type inference and encouraging immutable data, but they're still missing out on a lot of benefits offered by functional languages like Haskell and OCaml by ignoring these features. I do see functional programming features making their way in to imperative languages but most people are still coding in an imperative way. Mutable data is still the default rather than immutable data for example.
- watmough 12y agoLinq in C#.