Static checking of units in Servo

Re:Static checking of units in Servo by coldtea on Monday June 23, 2014 @06:53PM (#7935265)

>We've been using stuff like phantom types in Haskell for years, where have you been?

Lusting over a language that borrows its syntax from the Algol we all love and doesn't require a degree in Type Theory?

Oh, and without laziness, and with speed and no-GC guarantees...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Static checking of units in Servo by CyberShadow on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @01:01AM (#7936260)

Have you looked at D yet? It scores 4/5 by your mark, and they're working on the fifth point.

Here's the documentation for the proposed units module. I believe it has the same principles as Boost units:

http://klickverbot.at/code/units/std_units.html

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Static checking of units in Servo by dllthomas on Monday June 23, 2014 @06:56PM (#7935284)

The language in common use with the closest syntax to Algol is probably Bourne shell.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Static checking of units in Servo by coolsunglasses on Monday June 23, 2014 @07:11PM (#7935339)

One or two of your five objections are valid and not because you're well-informed.

Let me know if you'd like to know more.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Static checking of units in Servo by coldtea on Monday June 23, 2014 @10:43PM (#7935947)

Let's see:

1) Not algol derived syntax (check) 2) Speed (check -- I don't care about the: "you can write it totally unidiomatic and squeeze it to almost C or even better for some microbenchmark" situation). 3) Degree in type theory (meant as a joke anyway, refers to the steep learning curve of the tons of concepts introduced). 4) Laziness (don't care about the "you can switch it off" situation). 5) Has a GC (check).

Is there anything I really missed? In real life, classical use, as opposed to "if you really try and want it, you can also do it this way"?

[ Parent | on HN ]