"C. McCann" <c...@uptoisomorphism.net> writes: > > That's... not really fair. A static type system DOES impose > limitations, and arguing with the compiler about whether some code is > acceptable does take time. Even a handful of simple unit tests will > catch the majority of possible errors, and things that require deep > metaprogramming wizardry in Haskell can be stupidly trivial in > something like Ruby. If writing something in Haskell would mean ten > lines of metaprogramming and type signatures for every single line of > code, but a few unit tests and some quick-and-dirty Python would > provide acceptable results, I'd go with the latter. > > The better question is "when do the benefits of static typing outweigh > the costs imposed?". If you're using Java, the answer is probably > "never", but even in Haskell I don't think the answer is quite > "always".
I've seen a lot of people claim that there are cases where it's easier/better to use dynamic typing than even Haskell-style static typing, but have never been given an example or reason why. Care to actually provide one? -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe