On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 17:16 -0400, John Dorsey wrote:
Quoth Tim Newsham:
Haskell programs with particular constraints (i.e. pure, total Haskell, doesn't primarily call gtk...)
Yup, and that's a great thing that we should be evangelizing to all potential users. No need to go overboard and tell them that there will never be a crash, though.. The robustness claim is strong enough without embellishment.
Pure, total Haskell programs may blow the stack.
Total is unnecessary (with regards to the earlier comment, not the immediately preceding one.)
Just what is the concise, compelling, unembellished claim regarding Haskell's inherent robustness?
The concise, compelling, unembellished claim is: if your "pure*" Haskell program segfaults (or GPFs) then it's the implementation's fault, not yours. [unless your OS/Arch is stupid] This isn't unique to Haskell, every memory-safe language has it. * "pure" as in "100% pure Java" which has similar claims