3 ms·
Haskell 2010 is pretty small. Comparable to say Clojure, but more complex than Scheme. GHC Haskell with the kitchen sink of extensions turned on is big. Very bi
by dwohnitmok 8y ago
Haskell 2010 is pretty small. Comparable to say Clojure, but more complex than Scheme. GHC Haskell with the kitchen sink of extensions turned on is big. Very big.
Sticking to Haskell 2010 with a few extensions that make known behavior more consistent (GADTs, NoMonomorphismRestriction, and a few others in that vein) is the best bang for buck in my experience.
- hota_mazi 8y agoThe complexity of a language has nothing to do with its size. Brainfuck or Whitespace are two minuscule languages that produce the most impenetrable sources.
- dwohnitmok 8y agoThat's true. I meant size in the hand-wavy sense of "this feels complicated" (although the syntax part is also true in this case). For example there's a GHC extension to overload the meaning of a type declaration (DataKinds). This technically doesn't introduce new syntax but it's definitely a "big" extension in my book.
- Tarean 8y ago> I'm from Microsoft and when you see Microsoft documentation it often says, you know, x y or z is a rich something, right. In this case Haskell - or ghc's version of haskell is a rich language. What does this mean? Sounds good, doesn't it? But it always means this, right. That it's a large, complex, poorly understood, ill documented thing that nobody understands completely. From a great talk by Simon Peyton Jones https://youtu.be/re96UgMk6GQ https://youtu.be/re96UgMk6GQ
- Tarean 8y agoLinked the wrong talk, oups https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR_VzYxvbxg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR_VzYxvbxg