Re: What's wrong with C++?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 20:34:03 +0100, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:12:37 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a �crit:
>> The third note is that if inferred, then why should we care of types?
> No, you have to care, and you still define types. You just don't have to  
> be so much redundant as you would be with, say, Ada.

I didn't mean redundancy, I did a meta language that binds the program to
its application domain. In Ada it is largely the type system. Without types
what takes its place?

> This is required with  
> functional language where you do not use side-effect (there may be some  
> side effect in SML which is not stricly pure, but you may not use side  
> effects as long as you don't want), where function returns rather complex  
> types and get numerous parameters which are as much complexes. Without  
> type inference... functional program texts would simply be an unreadable  
> mess (:-))

And with type inference they still are. (:-))

>> Now the main objection is computability and decidability. Only "simple"
>> things can be inferred. The compiler cannot solve problems beyond
>> Turing-completeness.
> Actually, SML interpreters are required to complain if ever that occurs,

Occurs what? The point is that you fundamentally cannot infer some things,
and there is no way even to infer that these things exist or need to be
inferred. 

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de