6 ms·
> The same is not true of Haskell. If you have never looked at Haskell code, you may have difficulty following even simple functions. Why is it that people tal
by matt_wulfeck 9y ago
> The same is not true of Haskell. If you have never looked at Haskell code, you may have difficulty following even simple functions.
Why is it that people talk about this almost as if it's done virtue of the language? As if the fact that's it's so inscrutable proves that it's valuable, different, and on a higher plane of computing.
- gkya 9y agoNot that that's a virtue, but it's a proof that it's a different thing.
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoI didn't read it that way at all. I read it as acknowledging the syntax as a problem in the beginning, but claiming that it became much easier to read once you really learned the language.
- jdreaver 9y agoYou are reading into that way too much. The author is just saying the syntax is a lot different than languages you have probably used before.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tikhonj 9y agoThe point is that it's not inherently inscrutable—it's different. And being different is a virtue: at the very least, you'll learn something from Haskell, and it's going to let you do things other languages won't. It's not just an Algol reskin.
- tormeh 9y agoIf it had Algol syntax and Algol naming conventions it might actually have succeeded outside of academia. The decision not to go with an Algol-derived syntax was probably the biggest mistake ever done in Haskell's design.
- dllthomas 9y agoMaybe... I'm not convinced the semantics would feel as good in that setting.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y agoIt's merely different. It's like using Prolog for the first time, you're likely to find it very unfamiliar.