[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
In Scheme all things are possible, more or less;
but I have to concede that the Haskell type system
makes it more likely that, once the type system is
happy, such hairy code actually works correctly.
1. Well, not really. How can you express once and for all that a Scheme
function is (int -> int) -> (int -> int) ?
2. Finding and eliminating the type bugs is proving a theorem about the
soundness of data manipulation. It's not surprising that you eliminate
many bugs as you do so. I do not understand, however, why the language
should not allow you to use the dynamic debugger while you're doing
A few years back I spent 15 minutes implementing and running a minimini
thread system in Scheme using call/cc and nothing else. A person who had
worked on the SML/NJ compiler tried to mimic the idea in SML and spent
2 hours getting the types right. Yes, when his code ran, it was correct.
But is it worth the price>
PLT Scheme will give you both. It already does in some way.
(No, we're not a Scheme in the pure sense. And as I have said before,
Schemers accuse me of being an CAML in sheep-skin and MLers condemn me
as a Scheme sinner :)
- Re: Icon
- From: Guy Steele - Sun Microsystems Labs <gls@labean.East.Sun.COM>