As I tried both Clean and Haskell, for me Clean is "worse Haskell". As one example, Clean did not support non-latin1 alphabets in the UI library and my attempt

As I tried both Clean and Haskell, for me Clean is "worse Haskell". As one example, Clean did not support non-latin1 alphabets in the UI library and my attempt to somehow correct the situation was in vain, the next release of the language did contain the same error. In contrast, when I discovered non-linear (at least quadratic) behavior in relatively fringe case of type checking algorithm in ghc, it was corrected quite quickly. As per language themselves, Clean purported to have uniqueness types which should make programming better and easier and Clean developers came with special syntax to reuse same names during processing unique-typed values. Which is essentially a Haskell's do notation in disguise, except it cannot be used for different purposes, like non-deterministic List monad. At about 2008 or slightly earlier, type system of Haskell became powerful enough to erase bindings from environments (famous HList by Oleg Kiselyov), allowing one to express many things, including linear and unique types (example [1] - if state's parameters can change number of bindings, we can check for bindings' erasure, expressing linear (all bindings are erased, except ones returned) and unique (some bindings can be left) types). [1] http://blog.sigfpe.com/2009/02/beyond-monads.html http://blog.sigfpe.com/2009/02/beyond-monads.html I keep saying what is language feature in regular programming languages is a library in Haskell. Clean is no exception.