It is a programme for designing a programming language.
It is leaving out a number of central issues: How to approach modularity
whether it should have opaque types (and why), whether there should be subtypes or not, how the type system is supposed to deal with arithmetic which has almost-compatible integer types and floating-point types. That's just off the top of my head, I am pretty sure that there are other issues. It is hard to discuss merits or problems at this stage, since all of these issues tend to influence each other.
One thing I have heard is that effects, subtypes and type system soundness do not mix well. Subtypes are too useful to ignore, unsound types systems are not worth the effort, so I find it a bit surprising that the paper has nothing to say about the issue.
Are you aware how "monadic IO" became the standard in Haskell? It was one of three competing approaches, and AFAIK one turned out to be less useful, and the other simply wasn't ready in time (so it might still be interesting to investigate).
> For IO, ... variable parameters.
What's the advantage here? Given the obvious strong disadvantage that it forces callers into an idiom that uses updatable data structures, the advantage better be compelling.
>... the 'try' built-in being analogous to 'if'.
What is the analogy? That stuff is evaluated only on a by-need basis? That's already there in Haskell.
Right now I fail to see what's new&better in this.
Thanks, I will.ROn 23 October 2016 at 23:23, KC <kc1956@gmail.com> wrote:You may want to look at
Call-By-Push-Value
A Functional/Imperative Synthesis
By Springer--
--Sent from an expensive device which will be obsolete in a few months! :D
Casey
On Oct 22, 2016 5:19 AM, "Rik Howard" <rik@dcs.bbk.ac.uk> wrote:______________________________Dear Haskell Cafe Subscriberson the recommendation of someone for whom I have great respect, I have just subscribed to this list, it having been suggested as being a good place for me to get feedback regarding a project that I have been working on. I am humbled by the level of discussion and it feels to be a very bold step for me to request anybody's time for my words.The linked document is a four-page work-in-progress summary: the length being stipulated, potential novelty being the other main requirement. Given the requirements, the summary necessarily glosses over some details and is not yet, I fear, completely correct. The conclusion is, more or less, the one at which I am aiming; the properties are, more or less, the ones that are needed.The work arises from an investigation into functional programming syntax and semantics. The novelty seems to be there but there is too a question as to whether it is simply a gimmick. I try to suggest that it is not but, by that stage, there have been many assumptions so it is hard to be sure whether the suggestion is valid. If anyone has any comments, questions or suggestions, they would be gratefully received.Yours sincerelyRik Howard_________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-caf e
Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.