And also, imagine trying to build a system that works like our body does, particularly fascinating is the process of wound healing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wound_healing
You know, there's a reason for why Akka's actors, a library built for a fairly static and expressive language (Scala), are dynamically typed. Try finding out why that is.
Wow. Just... wow. Seriously? No! The expression problem can be solved in Haskell in a straightforward manner using type classes[0].
You know, there's a reason for why Akka's actors, a library built for a fairly static and expressive language (Scala), are dynamically typed. Try finding out why that is.
Because Scala is a crappy, broken language built out of compromises with the JVM? Take a look at Haskell's distributed-process[1] library. It solves the problem that Akka punted on (namely type-safe serialization of function closures).
[0] http://paulkoerbitz.de/posts/Solving-the-Expression-Problem-...
Saying that Haskell's distributed-process solves the problems that Akka is solving is short-sighted and wrong. But then again, the main reason for why Haskell hasn't attracted me has nothing to do with technicalities and everything to do with a vocal minority of Haskell users that I find totally repulsive.
This.
> The expression problem can be solved in Haskell in a straightforward manner using type classes.
Lol, WUT? No.
Btw, I think that you are actually trying to lecture Scala people about typeclasses just shows how clueless you are.
I think it's unfortunate that we conflate strong explicit typing with static compilation. Common Lisp, for example, can be seen as statically typed; it can give you compile-time type errors. But you can also recompile at runtime; add new types at runtime; and so on.
Ruby is more dynamic than other languages and that's in a bad sense. I always get a kicker when thinking about the purpose of the "class" keyword, being to open the class context or create the class as a side-effect if it doesn't exist. Ruby is built for runtime mutation of types - which is good in certain contexts, but unfortunately you cannot scope those mutations, leading to the ultimate side-effecting hair ball if not careful about both your code and other people's libraries - it would be useful to say, modify the String type or import this library, but only for this block of code.
It doesn't care about dynamic solutions, and they don't capture as much information anyway. Of course you can express anything in a dynamic fashion, in the end assembly is untyped too.
So, if those indeed were "people smarter than you", you didn't understand what they were saying.
You're then saying that the expression problem wouldn't exist if dynamic typing is allowed. Well, that was my whole point.
(There is also a link at the bottom of the Wikipedia article you linked to.)
