On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 11:12:31PM +0000, Joel Reymont wrote:
Simon,
Please see this post for an extended reply:
http://wagerlabs.com/articles/2006/01/01/haskell-vs-erlang-reloaded
Looking at this code, I wonder if there are better ways to express what you really want using static typing. To wit, with records, you give an example data Pot = Pot { pProfit :: !Word64, pAmounts :: ![Word64] -- Word16/ } deriving (Show, Typeable) mkPot :: Pot mkPot = Pot { pProfit = 333, pAmounts = [] } and complain about "having to explain to the customer how xyFoo is really different from zFoo when they really mean the same thing". I wonder: if they really are the same thing, is there a way to get the data types to faithfully reflect that? Can you post a few more snippets of your data structures? Peace, Dylan