14 ms·
The great thing is: if and when Haskell ever evolves as far as described in the post, we'll have Lisp again - inside "Haskell". ;)
by pwpwp 16y ago
The great thing is: if and when Haskell ever evolves as far as described in the post, we'll have Lisp again - inside "Haskell". ;)
- Locke1689 16y agoLooking at it that way is ignoring all the benefits that Haskell can offer over Lisp. If all you can think in is Lisp then you're doomed to write Lisp in any language, to turn a phrase.
- andreyf 16y agoNo. Haskell has type safety which was never intended to be included in Lisp. On the other hand, Lisp has the s-expression syntax which allows for usable compile-time macros. Neither language is a subset of the other. How useful type checking and macros are in creating real-world software is not a question I've seen answered well. Smalltalk-style languages (Python, Ruby) don't really practice either.
- pmarin 16y ago"Haskell has type safety which was never intended to be included in Lisp." Racket has a dialect with static types. http://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-guide/ http://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-guide/
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- Mathnerd314 16y agoHaskell has Template Haskell, which is (almost) as usable as Lisp macros.