I think a lot of folks have not implemented lazy languages before, let alone one with as many features and type system extensions as GHC Haskell. Most of GHC's code is in the typechecker, as I understand it.
-
-
-
Also I think the type checker is pretty fast isn't it? It's airways seemed to me to be code generation where it's had to work really hard.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I remember sometimes I cannot even pattern match a tuple. The error said something about linear types iirc. I remeber a concerned issues is still open in March 2020. Without these bugs Idris is quite easy to get along with.
-
We'll sort them out eventually... there's a couple of places where quantity checking isn't quite right yet.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Why would anyone not think Idris is simpler?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The type language and template language in haskell are both huge. One reason I like idris is the ability to use the core language for most of the same things.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It has fewer keywords, language extensions, etc...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I believe it!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Being able to bootstrap from a scheme implementation is a strong evidence. I as a Haskeller envy this
- End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
