4 ms·

I don't know that I've ever seen someone call ML "Lisp without parentheses". Regardless, even with some familial relationship and a few principles in common (li

I don't know that I've ever seen someone call ML "Lisp without parentheses". Regardless, even with some familial relationship and a few principles in common (like a commitment to functional programming) the two lineages are far more different than they are alike: Lisp has a powerful dynamic core and intricate metaprogramming capabilities, while Haskell builds on a powerful type system and non-strict evaluation. Saying that Haskell is "Lisp all over again" is sort of like saying that cars are "trains all over again": a statement so reductive, it's somewhere between wrong and nonsensical!

kamaal 9y ago
>>I don't know that I've ever seen someone call ML "Lisp without parentheses". My bad. It's called Lisp with types. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_(programming_language) Now. Haskell does look like a impractical scheme. Beyond that, today if you want it, you have typed racket. For a lot of people you could just go ahead use Racket/Lisp instead of Haskell instead.