In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... > I think it's easier to write complex code in Haskell because: > > 1) it has a powerful static type system that lets you express > important invariants and have them enforced at compile time. This not > only catches errors but helps you understand the program logic almost > like running the code under a debugger does. If you try to fill a gap > by putting in a piece of the wrong shape, it just won't fit and the > compiler will tell you what you really wanted. On the other hand, > most types are inferred by the compiler, so you don't need a lot of > cumbersome declarations like in Java. Worth repeating. One of the perhaps surprising consequences, Haskell code can be very easy to modify. I've been fooling around with computer programs for a couple decades, and I'm just getting used to the idea that I can casually rewrite Haskell code and get the compiler to find what I missed. I have come to feel that the indiscipline of dynamic typing in languages like Python leads to an intuitively surprising rigidity. Ten years ago I would cheerfully accept this, given the meager and clumsy support for static typing in languages like C++, but today, it makes me appreciate Haskell's potential for complex projects. Donn Cave, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
