Re: another take on hackers and painters

[address@hidden (Michael Sperber [Mr.Preprocessor])]

>>>>> "Shriram" == Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk@cs.brown.edu> writes:

Shriram> On the other hand, in a language with a good static type system, I
Shriram> think programmers run into these restrictions far less often than they
Shriram> might think.  A sufficiently crafty programmer will recognize when
Shriram> they are hitting the language's type restrictions, and will then be
Shriram> able to provide a lovely critique of the type system along with the
Shriram> application that is shackled by it.  There are surprisingly few such
Shriram> critiques, and the ratio of critiques to impassioned pleas for freedom
Shriram> grows vanishingly small.

Depends on what qualifies as a "critique" in your book.  There are
many, many research papers on extensions of Hindley-Milner directly
motivated by applications not typable within it.  Prominent examples
are type classes (motivated the numeric tower, I believe), the various
OO/subtyping extensions to ML, Cayenne (printf), many, many extensions
to type classes, the CML type system, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,
etc.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla