12 comments
@dpwiz I was thinking more of Idris, but you're right, its a stretch to call it a theorem prover @dpwiz well I know that scheme is highly decomposable from experience. haskell, my experience is quite limited, but it doesn't seem like repurposing haskell code in unanticipated ways is particularly simple from my limited experience. @rml hm… Perhaps I don’t get what do you mean here. What’s the difference between a composable and decomposable code? @rml This looks like nominal vs structural “styles”. Haskell clearly favors the former, but has a lot to work with the latter - Dynamic, Generics, all kinds of “Value” ASTs and coercing/parsing/building to bridge it. I’m pessimistic, honestly, on the merits of generic structures throughout and usually want to parse them away and the boundary. Thus, it’s Haskell for me (: @rml I was a huge fan of #haskell & type theory. That's how I got into "advanced programming languages". I tinkered with it over a year and end up considering it totally useless. In (kinda&-)functional programming we have just functions and data. MLs praises functions. Lisps praises data. And I prefer data. @shegeley I got a similar story to relate but also needing to drag myself off masto to get work done, so i'll reply in a bit @rml I'm going to sleep in couple minutes anyway. Can only continue conversation tomorrow |
if you think the former is more desirable than the latter, then I got a theorem prover to sell to you dressed as a programming language