Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> On 2/17/11 8:19 PM, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
>> Le Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:02:58 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov
>> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
>>> The flaw here is structural equivalence and, more generally, type
>>> inference. Not everybody agree that type inference is bad. I do
>>> believe that it is.
>>
>> I personally believe type inference (within a typed language), is
>> good when that is used to tersely write models of an application.
>> That is what (S)ML en derivatives do.
>
> Oddly enough, it is good practice to *not* play the inference
> game when creating "models" in ML languages:  when ML programmers
> describe a structure or type, they use type names explicitly.
> Every function is written in terms of its (typed) profile,
> not just the names.

I've seen a LOT of interjection of promotion of functional language 
concepts. I don't think it's going anywhere fast or ever (it's a niche 
just like logic languages, I Guess). Academia still pushing this? Do 
tell, how do you come to know ML and such? (email is fine as it is an 
off-topic tangent, but you have to request here to do that).