If they contributed to the Haskell type system and they are commenting on the inferiority of the type systems of other languages, absolutely yes.
This is far from his first Haskell-bashing exercise. Take a look at the Wikipedia page for Haskell: "Robert Harper, using Standard ML to teach introductory programming, has given his reasons for not using Haskell. Among these are the difficulty of reasoning about resource usage with non-strict evaluation, that laziness complicates the definition of data types and inductive reasoning,[49]and the "inferiority" of Haskell's class system compared to ML's module system.[50]"
I'm not saying his arguments aren't valid. It's just curious that he's not attacking SML with the same vitriol, and perhaps people would like to know why.
I think in Harper's case he really does believe SML does it The Right Way, rather than promoting SML for ulterior/career reasons. His opinion on that subject isn't shared by many, but I think it's a genuinely held opinion. He just has very particular views on how type systems should be, and tends to overstate his views (e.g. treating questions reasonable people can disagree over as if he were stating unarguable facts).
I don't see how he is obligated to attack anything else with the same vitriol, if he doesn't see the same problems with it. It seems that we might just as well try to declare a moratorium on Haskell programmers' bashing of other languages on the basis that those other languages are not type-safe enough.
Any time someone bashes $FAVORITE, I can just disclose to everyone that they are a ${FAVORITE}-basher and therefore aren't speaking credibly. Hooray!
Surely you don't believe that SML doesn't have its own set of issues? My point is he doesn't criticize SML in the same manner on any issue, for a very good reason: he helped design the language.
I believe SML doesn't have any issue that Robert Harper cares about. It is nearly perfect in all things Robert Harper cares about. Are you suggesting that Robert Harper should care about more things than what he currently cares about?
I disagree with your opinion that he doesn't criticize SML because he was involved in the design. SML is not perfect, but Robert Harper does not criticize SML because SML is Robert-Harper-perfect. Or nearly so.
Comments
If they contributed to the Haskell type system and they are commenting on the inferiority of the type systems of other languages, absolutely yes.
This is far from his first Haskell-bashing exercise. Take a look at the Wikipedia page for Haskell: "Robert Harper, using Standard ML to teach introductory programming, has given his reasons for not using Haskell. Among these are the difficulty of reasoning about resource usage with non-strict evaluation, that laziness complicates the definition of data types and inductive reasoning,[49]and the "inferiority" of Haskell's class system compared to ML's module system.[50]"
I'm not saying his arguments aren't valid. It's just curious that he's not attacking SML with the same vitriol, and perhaps people would like to know why.
I think in Harper's case he really does believe SML does it The Right Way, rather than promoting SML for ulterior/career reasons. His opinion on that subject isn't shared by many, but I think it's a genuinely held opinion. He just has very particular views on how type systems should be, and tends to overstate his views (e.g. treating questions reasonable people can disagree over as if he were stating unarguable facts).
I don't see how he is obligated to attack anything else with the same vitriol, if he doesn't see the same problems with it. It seems that we might just as well try to declare a moratorium on Haskell programmers' bashing of other languages on the basis that those other languages are not type-safe enough.
Any time someone bashes $FAVORITE, I can just disclose to everyone that they are a ${FAVORITE}-basher and therefore aren't speaking credibly. Hooray!
Surely you don't believe that SML doesn't have its own set of issues? My point is he doesn't criticize SML in the same manner on any issue, for a very good reason: he helped design the language.
I believe SML doesn't have any issue that Robert Harper cares about. It is nearly perfect in all things Robert Harper cares about. Are you suggesting that Robert Harper should care about more things than what he currently cares about?
I disagree with your opinion that he doesn't criticize SML because he was involved in the design. SML is not perfect, but Robert Harper does not criticize SML because SML is Robert-Harper-perfect. Or nearly so.
What's your point?
My point is that you are seeing an ulterior motive where I don't see any.