4 ms·
I'm curious, what sorts of issues arise with complex types that Haskell-like syntax handles better? (Genuinely curious here -- I've written a little Haskell but
by cfallin 10y ago
I'm curious, what sorts of issues arise with complex types that Haskell-like syntax handles better? (Genuinely curious here -- I've written a little Haskell but am by no means an expert...)
IMHO a Rust-style type `Option<HashMap<String, Vec<u32>>>` is a little noiser than the Haskell-style type `Maybe (Map String [Int])`, but not fatally so. Maybe there are much worse cases though?
- ryani 10y agoThe big one is `->`; all the 'template argument'-inspired syntaxes for this are terrible. Once you realize you want operators (and polymorphic operators, at that!) in your types, the `<u32>`syntax falls apart. I am not a fan of C#'s `Func<a,b>` at all.