3 ms·
What are the "many" other issues (other than the two you mentioned in your comments)?
by scscsc 8y ago
What are the "many" other issues (other than the two you mentioned in your comments)?
- FullyFunctional 8y agoA random sampling (with some overlap of already discussed issues): * A less verbose syntax (want examples?) and less bizarre syntax :) Clearly subjective, but IMhO Haskell is a lot cleaner * Constructors starts with uppercase, avoiding the issue the issue related to misspelled constructors (and allowing most editors highlight the constructor) * Type-classes allow for sane overloading of functions and operands, solving the int/float problem of SML, but extending far beyond just that. * As he mentions: the infix operator and the export from modules are both fixed in Haskell * Supports binary numbers (sure, it's a trivial library issue, but possible because of type classes allow extending the concept of numbers) * The polymorphic equality is solved in Haskell, again, with type classes, allowing us to define equality to any user defined type in a way that makes sense for it (including the set example) * List concatenation is right associative (he mentions SML's left associative @ as a problem) * SML's overflow on + problem are solved by not having overflow (j/k, Haskell lack of overflow on integers is a serious problem IMO, but other than making Int === Integer there's no easy solution).
- scscsc 8y agoSo you are agreeing with the author, since he is critiquing Standard ML (not Haskell). It is clear that the paper was influential, since Haskell does not have the shortcomings described.
- FullyFunctional 8y agoHaskell predates the paper so no, I don't agree with your interpretation