|
|
|
|
|
|
by the_af
3066 days ago
|
|
|
What exactly do you mean by "a complex compile-time static typing system"? I'm not familiar with Rust, but C++'s and Haskell's typing systems don't look very similar, or even of similar complexity. I do agree there's an inherent complexity in the problem domain. It's just that some languages are more helpful than others in dealing with this complexity :) PS: my own bias: Haskell's seems both easier (in general) and more helpful than C++'s. |
|
|
yet they are. The difference between the Haskell type system and the C++ type system is that generic constraints on types are explicitely specified with typeclasses in Haskell, while they are implicitely specified with templates in C++ (though this changes in C++20 with concepts).
To make a "conceptual leap" beyond the C++ and Haskell type systems, you have to use a language with dependent types such as Idris or Coq (and actually, dependent types can be simulated in C++ ! http://pfultz2.com/blog/2015/01/24/dependent-typing/ but like all simulations, it will be slower than if it was implemented directly by the compiler).