News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ask HN: Why Haskell? by solomatov on Sunday March 30, 2014 @09:48PM (#7499018)
>Hmm, I think you could do something similar to QuickCheck using C# generics

You can't do this. Quick check can generate type classes instances, for example, for tuples, functions, etc. This is impossible in language like C#.

Re:Ask HN: Why Haskell? by Locke1689 on Monday March 31, 2014 @02:27AM (#7499974)
There are certainly cases which aren't expressible(things which require kinding, for example) but your examples aren't a problem. Both tuples and functions can be represented using System F, and thus can be completely transposed into C# generics.

I believe you don't understand C# generics and you should look closer at the fundamental type calculus.

Re:Ask HN: Why Haskell? by SamReidHughes on Sunday March 30, 2014 @09:59PM (#7499070)
No it's not. The feature C# calls reflection lets you inspect types and generate them automatically.
Re:Ask HN: Why Haskell? by solomatov on Monday March 31, 2014 @12:06AM (#7499547)
If we use reflection, we might know about error only in runtime. What haskell does is guaranteed to work at compile time. That's why it's so cool.
Re:Ask HN: Why Haskell? by judk on Monday March 31, 2014 @01:29AM (#7499809)
QuickCheck doesn't do anything interesting at compile time.
Re:Ask HN: Why Haskell? by dllthomas on Monday March 31, 2014 @05:13PM (#7504226)
"What haskell does is guaranteed at compile time to work."