Subject: Re: type safety in LISP
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 08 Dec 2002 22:37:32 +0000
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Pascal Costanza
| However, there are counter examples.

  A counter-example is an example of something quite different than
  what has been claimed, intending to refute the claims.  However, I
  made no claims about Haskell, nor any claims to universality that
  can be shot down with a simple counter-example.  I do know enough
  about logic to avoid that kind of stupid traps, and so should you.

  You have shown an /additional/ piece of information, namely that
  static typing can be done better than the languages that were under
  discussion in this case.  Someone who reads about C# and asks some
  questions about type-safety is unlikely to have the prerequisites to
  understand what Haskell is, as well as being completely unable to
  enter a context where it makes sense to talk about that language.

Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.