> Meanwhile a Haskell programmer might go years and never think about HKT as a feature. It’s just “kinds” without artificial-looking limitations.
And yet, at the same time, Haskell has many, many extensions to enable certain features that would come for free in a dependently typed language, for example. I find Idris's type system easier to fit in my head, for example.
There's always a next level of generality in which previously complicated concepts can be expressed more simply, but there are also sometimes reasons not to want to reach that level of abstraction, for various reasons.
(Although in principle, I agree. I don't find the concept of HKTs particularly complicated per se.)
> And yet, at the same time, Haskell has many, many extensions to enable certain features that would come for free in a dependently typed language, for example.
For sure.
In Rust’s case though it seemed that insiders were saying that HKT was more than the language needed, while now they keep running into limitations which necessitates patching up feature limitations. And patching up the language itself, not compiler extensions (maybe rustc is the only compiler that people use (?) but the updates are really to the language (in the abstract) itself).
But in any case, I’ve been told that I’m just talking out of my behind ;)
And yet, at the same time, Haskell has many, many extensions to enable certain features that would come for free in a dependently typed language, for example. I find Idris's type system easier to fit in my head, for example.
There's always a next level of generality in which previously complicated concepts can be expressed more simply, but there are also sometimes reasons not to want to reach that level of abstraction, for various reasons.
(Although in principle, I agree. I don't find the concept of HKTs particularly complicated per se.)