4 ms·
Haskell's advantages lie in being pure. It can't be 'friendlier,' because friendly languages let you hack things up (and are impure) as opposed to the planning
by semisight 15y ago
Haskell's advantages lie in being pure. It can't be 'friendlier,' because friendly languages let you hack things up (and are impure) as opposed to the planning required to lay down some Haskell.
- celoyd 15y agoI find it hard to believe that Haskell could not be friendlier. And I say that as a fan of Haskell.
- loup-vaillant 15y agoSomeone should define "friendly" at this point. Haskell certainly seems friendly enough to me. It catches most of my errors before I even run the program, it let me hack things relatively quickly with very little code. Yes, there is that "purity" discipline, but I mostly think like that anyway. Now, it certainly won't be friendly to one who routinely writes code like that: if (foo) if (bar) do_something; if (foo) {} // OK, do nothing else if (bar) {} // OK, do nothing else { do_something; } (I saw that yesterday in production code!) Those people think too procedurally to be able to understand Haskell, or even ML. You have to fix that flaw first. (For the few who don't see the code above as utterly ridiculous, here is the better version:) if (foo && bar) do_something; if (!foo && !bar) { do_something; }
- jorgeleo 15y agoI find funny how people want languages to be "friendlier" It is often an egocentric excuse to not lean new tools... As if programming was about making he programmer comfortable, as opposed to producing the best result possible.