[philh]

I think my position is:

Native heterogeneous lists will often be convenient, and sometimes when you've used them they're going to turn out in retrospect to have been a bad idea but sometimes they'll be just fine, especially if they stay fairly locally scoped. I haven't done any serious work in a language that supports them for years, so I don't have a strong opinion about how often each of those cases happens.

But if you decide you want heterogeneous lists, but your language doesn't support them, so you try to implement that with a sum type, then that's basically always going to be a massive pain.

[yawaramin]

What's an example use case where heterogeneous lists turn out to be fine but can't be modelled with eg the OCaml difflist technique, eg https://github.com/yawaramin/re-web/blob/0d6c62fb432f85cc437... ?

[philh]

I'm not familiar with that technique and don't know what's going on from that snippet.

In Haskell, any time a heterogeneous list turns out to be fine, I expect to be able to model it. Often it'll look like "I'm applying a polymorphic function to every one of these list elements", and then you can either do a sum type (as discussed in the post) or an existential (which doesn't need you to list up front all the types you might use). If the function is "is negative?", it'll look something like (untested)

    data SomeNum = forall a. Num a => SomeNum a

    isNegative :: SomeNum -> Bool
    isNegative (SomeNum n) = n < 0

    numbers = [SomeNum (3 :: Int), SomeNum (5.2 :: Double), SomeNum valOfUnexpectedNumericType]
    anyNegative = any isNegative numbers

...but it'll often be easier to just apply the `< 0` check to every element before putting them in the list. (If you have several functions you want to apply to them all, that's when the existential trick becomes more useful.)

So you can model heterogeneous lists in this case, and it's safer (because you can't put in a value that can't be compared to 0) but also less convenient. Whether that's an improvement or not will depend on the situation.

[cies]

> I haven't done any serious work in a language that supports them for years

Is this not silently admitting that strong types to some degree have won?

Don't get me wrong: I like Clojure/LISPs/Ruby. But I would not choose them for a new project these days.

(and I do not like JS, which has them too)

[philh]

I'm still working at the same company as when I wrote this, and that company is still using Haskell (now mostly Typescript instead of Elm). If I did move on I'd ideally want to keep using Haskell, or failing that some other strongly typed language.

But I don't expect that my own experience says much about the language ecosystem in general. I don't particularly have an opinion on whether or not strong types have "won", and I didn't intend to comment on that question.

[freilanzer]

I would definitely choose a Lisp if it had an Intellij-like IDE. Especially since the type system of CL is good, though not static, obviously. But it's a tradeoff between having Haskell during compile time and CL during development time, for me.