Re:What else are we getting wrong about programming languages?
by edejong on Sunday October 30, 2016 @05:54PM
(#12832593)
I don't think it's such a bad example. In a strongly typed language, it would be relatively difficult to 'type' the '==' operator which would be reflected by its horrific signature. The '===' operator, especially in language supporting type classes, would instead be relatively easy to define. The type indicates whether a concept, which might seem simple, is complex.
However, where static languages are lacking is in supplying proof of the rules associated with these operators. In the case of equality, that would be associativity, reflexivity and transitivity.
However, where static languages are lacking is in supplying proof of the rules associated with these operators. In the case of equality, that would be associativity, reflexivity and transitivity.