@raichoo Is that actually controversial? That is actually "the most obvious thing Haskell got wrong" most of the places I go.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @lambdatotoro
@jbetzend
@raichoo Very few people have objected to this decision. Although someone on IRC once made it very clear that I’m an idiot ;).2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @edwinbrady
@edwinbrady@raichoo Why? Just because of the compatibility with Haskell? Or is there another reason?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lambdatotoro
@jbetzend
@raichoo Because so many people know Haskell, apparently. I just ignored it anyway.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @edwinbrady
@edwinbrady@raichoo So these people want to get into a dependently typed lang but are unhappy about finding the notation of type theory? ^^1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@jbetzend @raichoo The notation does seem to be one of the less important differences. But : is still right for type declarations ::).
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.