5 ms·
That description actually sounds a lot more like Clojure to me.
by technomancy 16y ago
That description actually sounds a lot more like Clojure to me.
- harryh 16y agoWell with Clojure you get something that's more Lispy. With scala you get basically a mashup of Java + ML.
- runT1ME 16y agoI don't think Clojure has much at all to do with Haskell other than the pure functional aspect. One is a dynamic lispy language, the other has a very rigid type system (note I said rigid, not cumbersome) that's pretty much the antithesis of a lisp...
- technomancy 16y agoClojure's STM is based pretty heavily on Haskell's.
- runT1ME 16y agoYes, they're both pure functional so you need an STM to do anything...
- technomancy 16y agoI can't tell if this is a troll or just a misunderstanding, but it's wrong on two counts: Clojure is not purely functional, and side-effects are done more often with monads than STM in Haskell.
- runT1ME 16y agoare you sure I have the misunderstanding? Which Monad do you think people use for side effects in haskell? Do you think STM in Haskell is not handled by the STM monad?