Comment by astrange
12 hours ago
Haskell's type system would not easily prevent this bug. It's not good at numeric/logic issues like that. When people say "Haskell makes it impossible to write bugs" they mean "Haskell has enums" (ADTs).
12 hours ago
Haskell's type system would not easily prevent this bug. It's not good at numeric/logic issues like that. When people say "Haskell makes it impossible to write bugs" they mean "Haskell has enums" (ADTs).
Liquid Haskell might require you to prove that the divisor is nonzero, but even in standard Haskell there's common idioms for ensuring that a list is non-empty (data NonEmpty a = a :| [a]) or that text is non-empty (newtype NonEmptyText = NonEmptyText Text, with non-exported constructor, helpers like make :: Text -> NonEmptyText, or more advanced tricks like https://exploring-better-ways.bellroy.com/haskell-koan-type-... ).
The big problem preventing this approach from working for numbers is that it's just so cumbersome there. Most of this is because all the arithmetic operators are bundled into a single Num typeclass, and `fromInteger :: Num a => Integer -> a` has a type that's impossible for a "non-zero number" wrapper to satisfy.
Definitely room for improvement on Haskell's standard library when it comes to the number-related type classes. Modern Haskell could do very well in this area with a good type-class redesign in this area. The issue I think is that this would invalidate a lot of existing code, relying upon that. But you can already replace Prelude with something else in your own code if you want to.
I think Idris has a better chance there.
OOP has those too, and they're very annoying.
In Haskell they are a little less annoying. It is just easier to reason about (including proving) pure functions.
2 replies →
People don’t say "Haskell makes it impossible to write bugs"! You may have heard "if it compiles it works" which is somewhat tongue in cheek, but also true for a sufficiently loose interpretation of "works" in a way it is not true for languages with a less strong and flexible type system.
I am not claiming you cant write buggy code in Haskell! But following good functional style, your bug will more likely be compartmentalised, and fixing it will not break some other part of your program.
You can write good functional code in many languages. (Even C++!)
Sure! I have done my fair share of pretending Java and C++ support my functional style. But at the end of the day, you have better support for writing that style in a real functional programming language. And I wonder how well one can enforce a functional style in say Java or C++ upon the LLMs. Who knows, they might be great at it?