3 ms·
Dusting, thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not looking for Haskell. It's not what I'm looking for. What I want is declarative, not functional. There is an inhe
by jng 15y ago
Dusting, thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not looking for Haskell. It's not what I'm looking for. What I want is declarative, not functional. There is an inherent limitation in the functional approach, I hope to cover why that is in a further article in the series.
I am not after correctness per-se. I am actually more after "cheapness" at least in programmer time. But I do think a lot of the programmer time is spent in things that a solution-describing approach removes, and correctness gets a ride.
Hopefully I am in a right path in that direction!
- mdonahoe 15y ago"but I'm not looking for Haskell. It's not what I'm looking for" You repeat yourself like this several times in your article, and I find it tedious.
- jimmyjazz14 15y agoI have often heard Haskell called declarative, it all just depends on how you go about writing your Haskell code. Theoretically Haskell is "time cheap" it just requires more time upfront. That is not to say Haskell is exactly what you are looking for however, I think it is at this point, the closest useful language to what you are looking for.