4 ms·

Haskell is probably the exact opposite of what you are looking for. It's basically a pile of every academic's pet language feature. I would suggest you try Comm

by nvarsj 6y ago

Haskell is probably the exact opposite of what you are looking for. It's basically a pile of every academic's pet language feature. I would suggest you try Common Lisp or Clojure, which will probably be closer to what you are looking for.

piercebot 6y ago
Going to throw my weight behind the Clojure recommendation. For more information about the language, there was a great PDF published about the history of the language recently: https://download.clojure.org/papers/clojure-hopl-iv-final.pdf https://download.clojure.org/papers/clojure-hopl-iv-final.pd...
platz 6y ago
Language extensions do not prose a problem for the best-in-class composability that OP is interested in, for practitioners of the language, that haskell offers. Are you absolutely sure these language extensions are as bad as you think they are? Lets look at what they asked for: > But what I yearn for is computer languages that feel like the design elements all work together so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, instead of languages with a checklist of "good ideas" that thrown together create a whole that is lesser than the sums of their features. - computer languages that feel like the design elements all work together so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts + check - instead of languages with a checklist of "good ideas" that thrown together create a whole that is lesser than the sums of their features + the key here is making sure that you have "a whole that is lesser than the sums of their features". Haskell's Language Extensions do not prevent composability that the language offers, so this is not as big a problem as you make out here that said, I think it does require a bit of a 'paradigm shift' to learn haskell well, and if you're not up do it, clojure might be a better fit. But i don't think that would be motivated for the OP by the language extensions, but more from learning about laziness and lambda calculus.
- nvarsj 6y ago
  Don't get me wrong - I really do love Haskell. And I don't think the language extensions are bad. I just mean that Haskell doesn't feel like a coherent, commercial language to me. It is basically a bunch of PhD thesis's strung together on top of a research language - with some of these being very interesting and incredibly useful. This is perfectly fine for what it is - but it also means the overall language and standard library have not been designed with a "batteries included" mentality that let people get going easily and quickly in a commercial setting. I suggested CL/Clojure because those are both interesting, lambda-calculus based languages similar to Haskell (without the typing, unfortunately), with great, mature libraries for building any commercial project possible.
  - platz 6y ago
    No, I agree Haskell is not a "batteries included" language. That said, a lot new of languages tend to opt for a minimal base footprint e.g. rust, so that has also been the trend lately.

by nvarsj 6y ago

piercebot 6y ago

Going to throw my weight behind the Clojure recommendation. For more information about the language, there was a great PDF published about the history of the language recently: https://download.clojure.org/papers/clojure-hopl-iv-final.pdf https://download.clojure.org/papers/clojure-hopl-iv-final.pd...

platz 6y ago

Language extensions do not prose a problem for the best-in-class composability that OP is interested in, for practitioners of the language, that haskell offers. Are you absolutely sure these language extensions are as bad as you think they are? Lets look at what they asked for: > But what I yearn for is computer languages that feel like the design elements all work together so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, instead of languages with a checklist of "good ideas" that thrown together create a whole that is lesser than the sums of their features. - computer languages that feel like the design elements all work together so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts + check - instead of languages with a checklist of "good ideas" that thrown together create a whole that is lesser than the sums of their features + the key here is making sure that you have "a whole that is lesser than the sums of their features". Haskell's Language Extensions do not prevent composability that the language offers, so this is not as big a problem as you make out here that said, I think it does require a bit of a 'paradigm shift' to learn haskell well, and if you're not up do it, clojure might be a better fit. But i don't think that would be motivated for the OP by the language extensions, but more from learning about laziness and lambda calculus.

nvarsj 6y ago
Don't get me wrong - I really do love Haskell. And I don't think the language extensions are bad. I just mean that Haskell doesn't feel like a coherent, commercial language to me. It is basically a bunch of PhD thesis's strung together on top of a research language - with some of these being very interesting and incredibly useful. This is perfectly fine for what it is - but it also means the overall language and standard library have not been designed with a "batteries included" mentality that let people get going easily and quickly in a commercial setting. I suggested CL/Clojure because those are both interesting, lambda-calculus based languages similar to Haskell (without the typing, unfortunately), with great, mature libraries for building any commercial project possible.
- platz 6y ago
  No, I agree Haskell is not a "batteries included" language. That said, a lot new of languages tend to opt for a minimal base footprint e.g. rust, so that has also been the trend lately.