4 ms·
> I disagree with this. There are many languages that are perfectly productive which are reducible to a very small core: Haskell, Standard ML, OCaml, Modula-2/3
by the_only_law 5y ago
> I disagree with this. There are many languages that are perfectly productive which are reducible to a very small core: Haskell, Standard ML, OCaml, Modula-2/3.
In regards to “small core” and Haskell, one of the complaints about I’ve heard is that any real code will inevitably end up using all sorts of language extensions, which seems to be the case in the admittedly small amount of Haskell code I’ve seen.
Now I’m not a Haskell developer (unfortunately it seems at the end of the day the energy expert learning it would be wasted), so I want to stay away from citing this as fact. But those pragmas tend to scare me away from the language.
- zetalyrae 5y agoI agree that Haskell in practice is the Cartesian product of all sorts of language extensions. But nevertheless Haskell 98 and Haskell 2010 are, in and of themselves, perfectly productive languages without extensions.
- tromp 5y agoI wrote a nontrivial Haskell application this year [1] and use exactly 0 language extensions. [1] https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking/tree/main/src/Chess https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking/tree/main/src/...