I am having hard time understanding this statement: Haskell types lack constructors, so the user never expects to be > able to conjure up a value of an unknown type. >
I am not sure how say in a Java language a constructor can "conjure up a value of an unknown type". daryoush On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > Hello Daryoush, > > Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 10:56:39 PM, you wrote: > > > If you notice java generics has all sort of gotchas (e.g. > > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jtp01255.html). I > > large prob;em of OOP languages with generics is interaction between > those two types of polymorhism. covariant/contravariant typing is one > example. since Haskell lacks OOP classes, it doesn't have such > pronblem at all. overall, speaking, pure languages (pure OOP, pure FP, > pure LP) is much simpler than ones trying to combine OOP, FP and > everything else together. There Is Only One Way To Do It In Haskell ;) > > > -- > Best regards, > Bulat mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
