On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Sandro Magi <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/07/2014 5:09 PM, Matt Oliveri wrote: >> Java's type system guarantees that you can call a method if it belongs >> to the type. It doesn't guarantee that you can't call a method if it >> doesn't belong to a type. > > Sure it does, it just provides a way to bypass the type system's > guarantees. Your argument implies that Haskell is not a lazy language > simply because it provides unsafePerformIO.
Alright I'll bite. Using Haskell as an imperative language with frequent calls to unsafePerformIO would be very annoying and unnatural. Using Java in the way I describe is not at all unnatural. Given that Java was not intended to be used for capability security, I suspect it's the intended way to think about Java. I'd like to end this conversation. As far as I can tell, no one has given evidence that my way of looking at Java is unequivocally wrong. You (Sandro) are now just repeatedly asserting your point of view, contradicting me, but without adequate justification. For the nth time, your way is one way to look at it, and my way is another. If you refuse to look at it my way, then there's no point in dragging on this discussion. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
