4 ms·

Because it is a good mix of features, syntax, execution speed and correctness. Of course. Didn't you read the article?

• GordonS 7y ago
  I did, and it's bad form to suggest otherwise. I was asking about your personal opinion, since you said it was great but didn't give any info as to why.
  • KirinDave 7y ago
    > I did, and it's bad form to suggest otherwise. If you say so. But... I said I think the features are good and you ask "why?" I could relist the features, but that's a waste of time. As I said, I think the combination is a good combination. In a world where people try to encode loops in YAML or JSON, even small improvements are better and Dhall is a large improvement. > I was asking about your personal opinion, since you said it was great but didn't give any info as to why. I don't really get what you're asking. I said I think the combination of features is good. I don't need to describe the features. The reason I like them is probably related to neurochemistry? Are you asking for a deep dive on how Dhall compares to alternatives?
    • GordonS 7y ago
      Then I apologise; because you posted I assumed you were happy to or wanted to engage in discourse, maybe highlight your favourite features, possibly debate the value it bring, that kind of thing, but I see my mistake now.