I love static typing and the type safety that languages like Haskell provide me. And I think they have practical benefit too. But I would give my right testicle if static typing advocates would stop encouraging the criticism that this is all academic nonsense.
I agree with you, we need to frame this in an accessible way. The OP is one of the most eminent academics in the world on static typing. I've taken a class with him, and I learned a lot from him.
His post can be rewritten in non-academic lingo. He is saying this: the module system in SML is better than any form of OOP out there. It solves the right problem in the right way. OOP conflates a lot of problems together and a lot of solutions together.
And I think he's right, so let me start on a non-academic way to phrase this. SML modules require less programmer cognitive load, fewer lines of code, compile into tighter machine code, do not have the fragile base class problem, and can express complex relationships in a cleaner way.
Comments
Urgh...
I love static typing and the type safety that languages like Haskell provide me. And I think they have practical benefit too. But I would give my right testicle if static typing advocates would stop encouraging the criticism that this is all academic nonsense.
I agree with you, we need to frame this in an accessible way. The OP is one of the most eminent academics in the world on static typing. I've taken a class with him, and I learned a lot from him.
His post can be rewritten in non-academic lingo. He is saying this: the module system in SML is better than any form of OOP out there. It solves the right problem in the right way. OOP conflates a lot of problems together and a lot of solutions together.
And I think he's right, so let me start on a non-academic way to phrase this. SML modules require less programmer cognitive load, fewer lines of code, compile into tighter machine code, do not have the fragile base class problem, and can express complex relationships in a cleaner way.