The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it _is_. On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:09 PM, John D. Earle wrote:

See "[Haskell-cafe] Optimization with Strings ?" for background.

Don Stewart wrote, "the guarantees of purity the type system provides are extremely useful for verification purposes". My response to this is in theory. This is what caught my attention initially, but the language lacks polish and does not appear to be going in a direction where it shows signs where it will self-correct. It may even be beyond repair. I care about others and I don't want people to be misled.

I am already well aware of the numbers. They do not impress me. I have written on this already. I have given Haskell the benefit of the doubt and said, What's wrong with being uncompromising? There is something wrong with it, if it has taken you off the path of truth. This is not uncompromising. This is something else. It is called fanaticism and this is the opinion that I have come to after due consideration.

If you are going to argue your case, be constructive. Tell me how the type system is not flawed and how the Haskell language is rigorous. What proof do you have of this? Explain to me how Haskell has been merely uncompromising in its pursuit of perfection and did not manage to step over the threshold into fanaticism. Please remain on topic and on point. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

John, Miguel (and others),

...

Don Stewart wrote, "the guarantees of purity the type system provides are extremely useful for verification purposes". My response to this is in theory. This is what caught my attention initially, but the language lacks polish and does not appear to be going in a direction where it shows signs where it will self-correct. It may even be beyond repair. I care about others and I don't want people to be misled. [...]

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it _is_.

I admit it's tempting, but wouldn't you agree that, especially in this case, it's better not to feed the troll? Cheers, Stefan

Brilliant. Just brilliant. On 3 Dec 2009, at 22:54, Daniel Fischer wrote:

Am Donnerstag 03 Dezember 2009 19:14:40 schrieb Stefan Holdermans:

...

John, Miguel (and others),

...

...

Don Stewart wrote, "the guarantees of purity the type system provides are extremely useful for verification purposes". My response to this is in theory. This is what caught my attention initially, but the language lacks polish and does not appear to be going in a direction where it shows signs where it will self-correct. It may even be beyond repair. I care about others and I don't want people to be misled. [...]

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it _is_.

I admit it's tempting, but wouldn't you agree that, especially in this case, it's better not to feed the troll?

To feed, or not to feed: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The quips and ramblings of outrageous trolling, Or to take arms against a sea of nonsense, And by opposing end them?

...

Cheers,

Stefan

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

So long as we bastardize the bard, we best bastardize him fully! :)

If only we could claim: Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't. Cheers, Stefan

Daniel Fischer writes:

To feed, or not to feed: that is the question:

Out, out, brief troll! This is certainly a thread that's full of sound and fury, but (or so I'm afraid) signifying nothing. :-) -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

On Dec 3, 2009, at 21:22 , Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:

Haskell" screeds, it sounds more like some kind of religious "truth". I.e. the "fanatic" arrow's pointing the wrong way, as far as I can tell.

I also have trouble understanding how a programming language can be a fanatic. Or how you give that statement any mathematical rigor. -- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] allbery@kf8nh.com system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:09 PM, John D. Earle wrote:

See "[Haskell-cafe] Optimization with Strings ?" for background.

Don Stewart wrote, "the guarantees of purity the type system provides are extremely useful for verification purposes". My response to this is in theory. This is what caught my attention initially, but the language lacks polish and does not appear to be going in a direction where it shows signs where it will self-correct. It may even be beyond repair. I care about others and I don't want people to be misled.

I am already well aware of the numbers. They do not impress me. I have written on this already. I have given Haskell the benefit of the doubt and said, What's wrong with being uncompromising? There is something wrong with it, if it has taken you off the path of truth. This is not uncompromising. This is something else. It is called fanaticism and this is the opinion that I have come to after due consideration.

If you are going to argue your case, be constructive. Tell me how the type system is not flawed and how the Haskell language is rigorous. What proof do you have of this? Explain to me how Haskell has been merely uncompromising in its pursuit of perfection and did not manage to step over the threshold into fanaticism. Please remain on topic and on point.

I honestly don't understand what your beef is. Could you explain what you mean with some specifics? In what way does Haskell lack polish? What makes you think it's not going in a direction where it will self correct? What's the "path of truth" and in what way is Haskell not on it? I would very much appreciate if you could try to explain what you mean using specific examples. I read the other thread and the post of yours didn't really seem to make much sense to me there either. -- Sebastian Sylvan

Well, since he thinks we're fanatics, getting a strong emotional reaction from us is something one certainly wouldn't desire. On 4 Dec 2009, at 21:14, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:

Sebastian,

It helps if you think of John as having already won in this discussion, since he succeeded in getting a lengthy high-noise emotional reaction from us. :-)

Cheers, Greg

On Dec 4, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:

...

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:09 PM, John D. Earle wrote: See "[Haskell-cafe] Optimization with Strings ?" for background.

Don Stewart wrote, "the guarantees of purity the type system provides are extremely useful for verification purposes". My response to this is in theory. This is what caught my attention initially, but the language lacks polish and does not appear to be going in a direction where it shows signs where it will self-correct. It may even be beyond repair. I care about others and I don't want people to be misled.

I am already well aware of the numbers. They do not impress me. I have written on this already. I have given Haskell the benefit of the doubt and said, What's wrong with being uncompromising? There is something wrong with it, if it has taken you off the path of truth. This is not uncompromising. This is something else. It is called fanaticism and this is the opinion that I have come to after due consideration.

If you are going to argue your case, be constructive. Tell me how the type system is not flawed and how the Haskell language is rigorous. What proof do you have of this? Explain to me how Haskell has been merely uncompromising in its pursuit of perfection and did not manage to step over the threshold into fanaticism. Please remain on topic and on point.

I honestly don't understand what your beef is. Could you explain what you mean with some specifics? In what way does Haskell lack polish? What makes you think it's not going in a direction where it will self correct? What's the "path of truth" and in what way is Haskell not on it?

I would very much appreciate if you could try to explain what you mean using specific examples. I read the other thread and the post of yours didn't really seem to make much sense to me there either.

-- Sebastian Sylvan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Or maybe it should be renamed proofObligationsOnUseNeedToBeSupliedBySuitablyQualifiedIndividualPerformIO which is what it really is - unsafe in the wrong hands Nei On 4 Dec 2009, at 08:57, Colin Adams wrote:

...

Please help me understand the holes in Haskell's type system.

Not really wanting to support the troll, but ...

unsafePerformIO?

Can't it be removed? -- Colin Adams Preston, Lancashire, ENGLAND _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Ah but the type system is the proof - it doesn't permit you to construct things that are 'unsafe' - the whole way the language (and its implementation) is constructed is to do that for you. The issue is that, very occasionally, you the programmer (usually for reasons of performance - runtime or code lines) want something slightly out of the ordinary. This is the escape mechanism. To quote the late, great DNA - it is all about rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty - one of the arts of programming is to push all the nasty doubt and uncertainty into a small corner where you can beat it to death with a large dose of logic, proof and (occasional) handwaving... Now before you start talking about 'surely the type system should be complete' - I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theorem Take comfort in that, I do, it means that us humans still have a role....... Neil On 4 Dec 2009, at 09:16, Colin Adams wrote:

But the type system doesn't insist on such a proof - so is it not a hole?

2009/12/4 Neil Davies :

...

Or maybe it should be renamed

proofObligationsOnUseNeedToBeSupliedBySuitablyQualifiedIndividualPerformIO

which is what it really is - unsafe in the wrong hands

Nei

On 4 Dec 2009, at 08:57, Colin Adams wrote:

...

...

Please help me understand the holes in Haskell's type system.

Not really wanting to support the troll, but ...

unsafePerformIO?

Can't it be removed? -- Colin Adams Preston, Lancashire, ENGLAND _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

-- Colin Adams Preston, Lancashire, ENGLAND