On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Juergen Pfitzenmaier wrote:
> Alex Ferguson wrote:
> > That C++ has a very poor type system.
>
> and Kevin Atkinson wrote in response:
> > You are going to have to justify it as I thing C++ and Java has a VERY
> > good type system minus the implicit typing system. In fact I *like* the
> > C++ typeing system better than I do Haskell's in many cases.
>
> C++ has no type *system*. At least I can see no *systematic* approach
> to types in C++.
Could you please elbeare here so that I can be sure of what you are
talking about.
> I like C++ but only for small one-shot programs there thinking about
> a good long-term solution would take me longer than hacking a dirty
> solution in C++. The good thing in C++ is the broken type system --
> I can twist it any way I like in case of a *minor* flaw in the
> design of my program. That twisting can be very hard in strongly
> typed languages.
What one person considers twisting is what another person considers
a very elegent solution.
In case you have not figured out a couple of months ago I posted the
beginnings of a generic container and algorithm collection for
Haskell. Duren the process of doing that I discovered the many
limitations of Haskell current type system. I simply could not do what
I wanted to do in Haskell with out resorting to hideously complex
types. The biggest thing that was biting be was all the ambiguity
caused from using multiple parameter classes.
If there is enough interest I could repost this code as well as an
explanation of the many "hacks" I had to due to get around ambiguity
arising fro the use of multiple parameter classes and other
limitations of Haskell.
I plan on eventually getting back to it once there is a working
implementation of a better solution to multiple parameter classes.
---
Kevin Atkinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
