Hi,
usually I'm sceptical of programming languages which are not based
on the von Neumann architecture, but recently I got interested in
functional programming languages.
The arrogance of lots of Haskell users, who made me feel that using a
programming language other than Haskell is a waste of
Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Hi,
usually I'm sceptical of programming languages which are not based
on the von Neumann architecture, but recently I got interested in
functional programming languages.
The arrogance of lots of Haskell users, who made me feel that using a
programming language
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:20:02PM +0100, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
What has Haskell to provide what Common Lisp and Dylan haven't?
Static typing (with inference). Very large difference, that.
That's true. This is a big advantage when compiling programmes. But as
Matthias-Christian Ott o...@mirix.org writes:
That's true. This is a big advantage when compiling programmes. But as
far as I know type inference is not always decidable in Haskell. Am I
right?
Decidability of type inference depends on features you use (GADTs, type
classes etc). Type
ronwalf:
I'm trying to wrap my head around the theoretical aspects of haskell's
type system. Is there a discussion of the topic separate from the
language itself?
Since I come from a rather logic-y background, I have this
(far-fetched) hope that there is a translation from haskell's type
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Ron Alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to wrap my head around the theoretical aspects of haskell's
type system. Is there a discussion of the topic separate from the
language itself?
Since I come from a rather logic-y background, I have this
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 04:40:51PM -0400, Ron Alford wrote:
I'm trying to wrap my head around the theoretical aspects of haskell's
type system. Is there a discussion of the topic separate from the
language itself?
Since I come from a rather logic-y background, I have this
(far-fetched) hope
On Jun 17, 2008, at 11:08 PM, Don Stewart wrote:
Haskell's type system is based on System F, the polymorphic lambda
calculus. By the Curry-Howard isomorphism, this corresponds to
second-order logic.
just nitpicking a little this should read second-order
propositional logic, right?
On 6/18/08, Edsko de Vries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regarding type classes, I'm not 100% what the logical equivalent is,
although one can regard a type such as
forall a. Eq a = a - a
as requiring a proof (evidence) that equality on a is decidable. Where
this sits formally as a logic I'm
I'm trying to wrap my head around the theoretical aspects of haskell's
type system. Is there a discussion of the topic separate from the
language itself?
Since I come from a rather logic-y background, I have this
(far-fetched) hope that there is a translation from haskell's type
syntax to first
10 matches
Mail list logo
