Deprecating Safe Haskell, or heavily investing in it?

[atravers]

@BurningWitness

Any examples of languages that have useful code safety guarantees?

You mean like not being able to:

[…] bypass typing and module encapsulation.

Safe Haskell (2012)

…?

@BurningWitness

[…] I imagine you should be able to loop allocations in any of your examples.

No, apparently not. But if you can provide the page numbers where general recursion and heap exhaustion are discussed in the original Safe Haskell paper, that would be appreciated.

---

@BurningWitness

Types are nothing more than documentation that the compiler can read and check, and their usefulness far outweighs any potential problems from people violating them.

Hrm:

freePrize :: Prize
freePrize = unsafePerformIO (stealCreditCardDetails >> randomPrize)

---

@BurningWitness

Safe Haskell on the other hand does not give me the ability to point at a library with a Safe marking on it and say “yeah, that’s safe to use” […]

By "safe to use”, do you mean what is specified in the Safe Haskell paper, or your conveniently-expanded definition which also pursues general recursion and heap exhaustion?

[Kleidukos]

Alright you’ve done it, I’m closing this thread.
This is not the debate club, confrontational quips will have to happen elsewhere.