<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Coming to Terms with Your Choices: An Existential Take on Dependent Types · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2011.07653/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2011.07653/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Coming to Terms with Your Choices: An Existential Take on Dependent Types — mentioned by still_grokking</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28658988</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2011.07653:28658988</guid><pubDate>Sun, 26 Sep 2021 07:02:55 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The “ Some safe and some bold predictions” comment is almost exactly my view on how programming should evolve. (functional, reactive, going toward dependent types etc ) Interesting how in 2012 it was already so clear! Given that languages used broadly in the industry are lacking behind research 20+ years that&amp;#x27;s not a good prediction. It&amp;#x27;s just the way things are going. BTW: There&amp;#x27;s still no mainstream language with full dependent typing… (I count Haskell as mainstream; Scala seems closest¹ but still a long way to go). Actually people are already so overwhelmed by all that really old stuff…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2011.07653/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.PL</category></item></channel></rss>
