From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uio.no!nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!not-for-mail From: Erik Naggum Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: type safety in LISP Date: 08 Dec 2002 22:37:32 +0000 Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 21 Message-ID: <3248375852987400@naggum.no> References: <3248291118131892@naggum.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: maud.ifi.uio.no 1039387053 26348 129.240.65.5 (8 Dec 2002 22:37:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ifi.uio.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Dec 2002 22:37:34 GMT Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:48451 * 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.