(no title)
federicobond | 8 years ago
I don't have much experience with the ML family of languages, so I may have jumped to conclusions based on my previous experience with Haskell/Elm, but I did not intend it to sound as a dismissal of functional languages at all.
In fact, there is a growing community of researchers working on functional language design for the EVM, but I would wager that it's way more complex to build such a compiler than something a bit more "close to the metal", especially since no one had much experience with the implications of the memory/storage/execution model of Ethereum at the time work started on Solidity, let alone the kinds of vulnerabilities these contracts would be exposed to.
Hindsight is 20/20.
naasking|8 years ago
Perhaps the Ethereum devs didn't have this experience, but this experience and knowledge was out there. The E programming language has been a vehicle for smart contract and security research for over 20 years. How many Ethereum and/or Solidity devs read the E research, learned the E language and played around with it?
There is also decades of research on formalized smart contract languages. Nick Szabo is well known in this space, and he wrote a draft paper on a great contract language back in 2002:
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/contract-language/
How many of the devs have read this paper?
federicobond|8 years ago
What are the big ideas from E that Solidity is missing?
Also, the article by Nick Szabo has some interesting ideas, but as far as I understand, it does not describe a language for programming arbitrary smart contracts, just some notation for common financial contracts.