I agree that "statically typed" comes with a lot of Java/C++ baggage. Is there some way of saying "really statically typed", or "uncoercable immutable statically typed values"?
-deech On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:08 AM, DavidA <polyom...@f2s.com> wrote: > Ketil Malde <ketil <at> malde.org> writes: > > > > > Don Stewart <dons <at> galois.com> writes: > > > > >> Good start, if only the "advanced" were replaced with something more > > >> characteristic, like "lazy", or "statically typed". Which, BTW, both > do not > > > > > "lazy" and "statically typed" don't mean much to other people. They are > > > buzz words that mean nothing to many people. > > > > But they /are/ defining characteristics of the language, still. I think > > they should be mentioned, ideally as links to separate pages (or > > pop-ups or a "live" sidebar?) that explain what they mean, and why you'd > > want them. > > > > -k > > I agree that it is important to highlight the features that are > characteristic > of the language. However, I would add that "statically typed" is a turn-off > for > some people, so I think it is important to add "with type inference". > > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
