3 ms·
That's a pretty subjective opinion... I don't have much trouble with lisp but Haskell makes my eyes bleed. Of course I'm not a Haskell programmer, so it stands
by karmajunkie 10y ago
That's a pretty subjective opinion... I don't have much trouble with lisp but Haskell makes my eyes bleed. Of course I'm not a Haskell programmer, so it stands to reason that those who are find its syntax enjoyable.
To each their own...
- Tarean 10y agoI think haskell's syntax is extremely beautiful. However code that uses two dozen operators in half as many lines is incredibly ugly in any language and doing that can be quite tempting in haskell. For code that non-haskellers have to work with I would just write everything out which is what lisp does and probably results in better code. Otherwise there still is a balance, I think. Like Lispy: n <- textInput (set textInputConfig_inputType "number" (set textInputConfig_initialValue "0" def)) Operators for precedence: n <- textInput $ def & set textInputConfig_inputType "number" & set textInputConfig_initialValue "0" Alias for function: n <- textInput $ def & textInputConfig_inputType .~ "number" & textInputConfig_initialValue .~ "0"
- c3534l 10y ago> That's a pretty subjective opinion Only on hacker news do people think there are objective opinions! The syntax is, let's say, "divisive" which is enough of a reason to think that if you want functional programming to grow, something needs to change about it.
- karmajunkie 10y agoyeah, I don't think that's true. Neither Clojure nor Haskell seem to have any problems finding adherents, nor does the functional paradigm itself seem to be in danger of... anything. Your personal distaste for parens isn't much evidence to support the idea that they are antithetical to the growth of functional programming, nor my own distaste for Haskell evidence of the same.