|
|
|
|
|
by Tehnix
3158 days ago
|
|
I feel like this thread[0] in the discussion sorta delves into that. It's certainly an area with differing opinions and I can see why some might prefer having it simply be strings the whole way down, but at some point you are going to need to interact with the values you have, and at that point you need to know what type you are dealing with, so I really feel the serialisation argument is a bit weird. In databases you also have types on everything, albeit often less powerful. If not caring about types is really what you want, nothing stops you from treating everything as a String in Haskell. Heck, you can even do dynamic programming in Haskell with Data.Dynamic and Data.Typeable if you wanted to, but that sorta defeats the whole point of a nice and powerful type system. I think it's kinda ironic for you to bring up "parochialism" or narrow-mindedness when that is exactly what I was thinking throughout Hickeys talk. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/792nl4/clojure_vs_... |
|