Question

Ive come across some answers (here in SO) saying that Haskell has many “dark corners” in its type system, and also some messy holes. Could someone elaborate on this?

Thanks in advance

Answer 1

I guess I should answer this, especially since two people so far have misinterpreted my remarks…

Regarding non-termination, the remark in question was slight hyperbole for dramatic effect, and referred to non-termination at the value level. This was in context of comparing Haskell to theorem provers, in an answer to someone who mentioned type-enforced correctness properties as something they particularly appreciated. In that sense, the presence of ⊥ inhabiting otherwise empty types is a “flaw”, because it changes the meaning of a type like A -> B from “given an A, produces a B” into “given an A, either produces a B or crashes the program” which is, for obvious reasons, somewhat less satisfying from a proof-of-correctness standpoint.

It’s also completely irrelevant to almost all day-to-day programming and no worse than any other general-purpose language because, of course, the possibility of non-termination is required for Turing-completeness.

I don’t have any problem with UndecidableInstances. Actually, it bothers me less than ⊥ at the value level does because it only crashes GHC when compiling, not the finished program. OverlappingInstances is another matter, though, and the ad hoc mishmash of GHC extensions to provide little bits of things that would most naturally require dependent types certainly qualifies as “messy”.

But keep in mind that most of the things I’m complaining about in Haskell are only a problem because of the otherwise very solid foundation. Most type systems in other statically typed languages aren’t even coherent enough to be called “wrong” in comparison, and cleaning up the stuff I’m calling “messy” is an active and ongoing area of research.