Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!otter.hpl.hp.com!hpltoad!cdollin!kers From: kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional Subject: Re: Impact of FPL's on OS design? Message-ID: Date: 18 Jul 90 07:11:04 GMT References: <2189@dali> <43178@cornell.UUCP> <3209@stl.stc.co.uk> Sender: news@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Usenet News Administrator) Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK. Lines: 19 In-Reply-To: tom@stl.stc.co.uk's message of 16 Jul 90 11:15:00 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: cdollin.hpl.hp.com Tom Thomson says (among other things): (v) Type systems in functional languages are far too simple-minded; can't handle polymorphism unless it's parametric polymorphism with all parameters resolvable at compile time. (If only the functional people, the OO people, and the type-theory people would talk to each other; again Haskell has made a step forwards, but it's a smal one ). A language need not have a compile-time type system to be functional. Indeed, early languages like SASL and KRC (and EL Ziro, which is the language I implemented for my thesis lo! those many years ago) were dynamically typed. I've gone off strict compile-time type-checking since I started using dynamically-typed languages. See how easy it is to get corrupted? -- Regards, Kers. | "You're better off not dreaming of the things to come; Caravan: | Dreams are always ending far too soon."