3 ms·
(tongue-in-cheek "This is just what I wanted, all the syntactic peculiarities of Haskell with all the parentheses of Lisp." 'sarcasm.) Is there a way that
by TuringTest 9y ago
(tongue-in-cheek
"This is just what I wanted, all the syntactic peculiarities of Haskell with all the parentheses of Lisp." 'sarcasm.)
Is there a way that Hackett would standardize in using Readable Lisp [1] with Sweet-expressions as the default reader, to get rid of all the unneeded parentheses?
[1] http://readable.sourceforge.net/ http://readable.sourceforge.net/
- runeks 9y agoI'm curious, in which ways do you find Haskell syntax peculiar? Haskell has some of the cleanest syntax I've ever seen, not the least because tabs and newlines have meaning -- like in Python (which I also love). I seem to harbor an unhealthy amount of hatred towards Lisp because of all the parentheses. The example shown at your link makes me visibly upset, unless I'm mentally prepared for it. I love the $ in Haskell, which lets me leave out parentheses, and I never use more than single level of nested parentheses, because the resulting code looks confusing to me.
- TuringTest 9y agoI agree that Haskell syntax is incomparably clean, and that it works great for the classic simple program structures. But this laconism often makes it difficult to read. I understand the power of point-free style, and it's quite exclusive to build pipelines. But it is very hard to read a function in that style if you're not already familiar with all the abstractions used. The $ operator is a particular culprit ;-D Understanding a function depends heavily on precedence of operators. This is easy to do with algebra, because it uses few different operators. But in programming, where you have a huge number of functions defined in the program, it may be very hard to start reading a new program for the first time.