Hi all, Bardur Arantsson wrote: On 10/03/2015 10:06 AM, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
C++ is what "success at all cost" looks like. (I won't bother responding to the rest, others have done that adequately.)
Haskell is at no risk of becoming like C++ in that respect either. The point being made was just that the odd wart is not a big problem. But breaking things without really compelling reasons is.
Look, I truly[1] do appreciate the arguments in favor of "don't break things", but I don't think it's borne out by any reasonable reading of history.
Again, Graham and I were not saying "don't break things". We were saying "if things are to be broken, then there had better be very compelling reasons". That's a big difference. Best, /Henrik -- Henrik Nilsson School of Computer Science The University of Nottingham nhn@cs.nott.ac.uk This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.