> Again, I wouldn't say it "sucks" for this reason, just that it's dynamically typed. That's a tradeoff.
This is the Haskell wiki. I would expect most participants to view having a single global implicit union type to be a flaw, not a trade-off.
This is the Haskell wiki. I would expect most participants to view having a single global implicit union type to be a flaw, not a trade-off.
We don't expect that. We expect them to recognize that better type systems are better than worse type systems. Which seems pretty obvious when stated that way.
>I have yet to read anyone who advocates for dynamic typing describe static typing as a "flaw".
Try looking on the internet. Every "static vs dynamic" argument has 99% of the dynamic side arguing that static typing is bad because java's type system limits them and doesn't prevent any bugs.
Obvious - because you just said "with better defined as has more static typing, static typing is better". That's an empty statement if I ever saw one.
Bridges (or car engines, or any other engineered product) aren't invented whole cloth sans iteration. However, it's understanding of the invariants of the iterated system that allow for directed iterative design and ultimately better products.
Rather than repeat this argument, I'll refer to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7656184
It seems to me that this "chauvinism" is in the eye of the beholder, offended that others are suggesting that the tools they have invested time in may not be the best way to do things.
Personally, I am quite excited by the prospect of learning and investigating better tools. I think we're only just beginning down the road to finding better ways of programming.
Type systems can be provably flawed.
What you can prove about a uni-typed late-bound ("dynamic") languages is quite simply that they're unilaterally flawed.
By that measure, all "STEM" fields are inherently "chauvinistic".
Engineering isn't math either, but you can't do it right without math.
And yet that is not the original model for thinking about software, nor the only valid one. Haskellers who rely solely on deductive arguments in favor of their method are going to be stuck forever wondering why so few people are using their clearly superior tool.
This isn't a popularity contest, though if you were measuring popularity based on positive impact, that of Haskell has been substantial.
The only advantage to leveraging simpler and less accurate models is that they're easier for the people using them to understand at a micro scale -- at the cost of systemic accuracy and verifiability.
In being less accurate, they create systems that are more difficult to understand, more difficult to abstract and compose, more difficult to optimize, and more difficult to measure.
There's something destructive and anti-intellectual about trying to convince the world that deductive reasoning is just a matter of opinion.
It was a fun discussion while it lasted, but conjuring words out of thin air and putting them in my mouth is where it ends. Thanks.