On Dec 3, 2009, at 13:14 , Stefan Holdermans wrote:
John, Miguel (and others),Don Stewart wrote, "the guarantees of purity the type system provides are extremely useful for verification purposes". My response to this is in theory. This is what caught my attention initially, but the language lacks polish and does not appear to be going in a direction where it shows signs where it will self-correct. It may even be beyond repair. I care about others and I don't want people to be misled. [...]The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it _is_.I admit it's tempting, but wouldn't you agree that, especially in this case, it's better not to feed the troll?
This "troll" was, apparently, invited by one of the Simons onto the Haskell' list, then asked to move his spiels here.
That said, I have to say that, based on his output so far, I have trouble interpreting his "path of truth" as one of mathematical rigor; in the context of his "On the Meaning of Haskell" screeds, it sounds more like some kind of religious "truth". I.e. the "fanatic" arrow's pointing the wrong way, as far as I can tell.
-- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] allb...@kf8nh.com system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] allb...@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
