Comments on: Wadler’s Law Revisited http://comonad.com/reader/2012/wadlers-law-revisited/ types, (co)monads, substructural logic Sat, 29 Dec 2012 15:18:06 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: sclv http://comonad.com/reader/2012/wadlers-law-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-104342 sclv Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:19:41 +0000 http://comonad.com/reader/?p=571#comment-104342 The module system is an easy fix by comparison! (w/r/t nested modules only that is... once we get into ML/functors territory the can of worms/gate to hellmouth starts to open up.) The module system is an easy fix by comparison! (w/r/t nested modules only that is… once we get into ML/functors territory the can of worms/gate to hellmouth starts to open up.)

]]> By: Edward Kmett http://comonad.com/reader/2012/wadlers-law-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-104329 Edward Kmett Wed, 04 Apr 2012 05:34:34 +0000 http://comonad.com/reader/?p=571#comment-104329 Pseudonym: Of course. :D In general the 'strong record conjecture' can be viewed of as just a version of wadler's original law, with a subset of the semantics separated out, since if you factor out the 2^4 factor, it IS the same law (modulo comments), but you could go back to the original 1992 version of the law, and ... finish killing the joke completely. Pseudonym: Of course. :D In general the ’strong record conjecture’ can be viewed of as just a version of wadler’s original law, with a subset of the semantics separated out, since if you factor out the 2^4 factor, it IS the same law (modulo comments), but you could go back to the original 1992 version of the law, and … finish killing the joke completely.

]]> By: Pseudonym http://comonad.com/reader/2012/wadlers-law-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-104328 Pseudonym Wed, 04 Apr 2012 05:02:53 +0000 http://comonad.com/reader/?p=571#comment-104328 Both record conjectures are incorrect in the sense that Wadler's Law is, because Wadler's Law applies to <i>all</i> language designs, not just ones with an existing record design which doesn't do the job. If you extrapolated from only C++ discussions to all language design discussions, this would be called the Weak Concept Conjecture instead. I have a suspicion that every programming language has a missing but highly desirable feature, or existing but broken realisation of said feature, that everyone would like fixed, but most obvious ways to fix it would have nontrivial interactions with existing features or libraries and/or break a lot of existing code. BTW, if you think the Haskell records discussion is bad, you wait until someone bites the bullet on the module system. Both record conjectures are incorrect in the sense that Wadler’s Law is, because Wadler’s Law applies to all language designs, not just ones with an existing record design which doesn’t do the job.

If you extrapolated from only C++ discussions to all language design discussions, this would be called the Weak Concept Conjecture instead.

I have a suspicion that every programming language has a missing but highly desirable feature, or existing but broken realisation of said feature, that everyone would like fixed, but most obvious ways to fix it would have nontrivial interactions with existing features or libraries and/or break a lot of existing code.

BTW, if you think the Haskell records discussion is bad, you wait until someone bites the bullet on the module system.

]]>