4 ms·

There's a lot of hand-waving here. Do you realize that C syntax predates 1983? Can you explain what it is about Haskell syntax that irks you? Can you provide

There's a lot of hand-waving here. Do you realize that C syntax predates 1983? Can you explain what it is about Haskell syntax that irks you? Can you provide examples of silly idioms?

debacle 15y ago
The C syntax predates 1983, but it works. Haskell's operators are wonk: [0,1,2,3]!!2 versus: [0,1,2,3][2] Clearly !! is a logical array indexing operator.
- eru 15y ago
  You can define your own operator, if you want to. There are legitimate gripes you can have about Haskell syntax, but this is just trolling.
  - debacle 15y ago
    Calling someone a troll because they disagree with you is pretty offensive. And I don't want to define my own operator. I can define my own words in English as well, but I'd rather use the same words everyone else is using so it will be easier to communicate with them. If Haskell were as great of a language as you say, it would be more popular.
    - groovy2shoes 15y ago
      What you're saying is that you don't like Haskell's syntax because it's not C's syntax. The unfamiliarity card is not a legitimate card in the game of criticism. > I'd rather use the same words everyone else is using so it will be easier to communicate with them. Would you be happier if C was the only language, and everyone just had to use C? > If Haskell were as great of a language as you say, it would be more popular. This is completely non sequitur. Popularity has little to do with the advantages offered by a language. At one time, C was not so popular.
      - debacle 15y ago
        What I'm saying is that C is ubiquitous because it has strong syntax, and Haskell is not because it doesn't. I like C's syntax, but I also like Lisp's and Scala's and SQL's. > Would you be happier if C was the only language, and everyone just had to use C? If C were as powerful as a modern programming language (JavaScript) and had the standardization of a libraries that Perl or PHP has, then I'd be okay with writing C. The only reason I don't is because C has been improved upon. Haskell is a step back. > This is completely non sequitur. Of course it isn't. Popularity has a huge amount to do with the advantages offered by a language. If a language was crap, no one would use it. At one time, C was not very popular, but in the last 20 years almost all of the most popular languages, year after year, have been C or its descendants.
        groovy2shoes 15y ago
        By now it's clear to me that your argument has reduced to "I personally don't like Haskell's syntax, therefore Haskell cannot generally be a good language." If you don't want to use Haskell, that's fine. Don't use it. If you have legitimate criticism, I'd like to hear it.
- TheBoff 15y ago
  Can you explain what you dislike about it? It's a different operator, certainly. I'm pretty sure that it has an "odd" shape, because indexing a list in Haskell is potentially O(n). The operator itself is essentially a warning...

There's a lot of hand-waving here. Do you realize that C syntax predates 1983? Can you explain what it is about Haskell syntax that irks you? Can you provide examples of silly idioms?

debacle 15y ago

The C syntax predates 1983, but it works. Haskell's operators are wonk: [0,1,2,3]!!2 versus: [0,1,2,3][2] Clearly !! is a logical array indexing operator.

eru 15y ago
You can define your own operator, if you want to. There are legitimate gripes you can have about Haskell syntax, but this is just trolling.
- debacle 15y ago
  Calling someone a troll because they disagree with you is pretty offensive. And I don't want to define my own operator. I can define my own words in English as well, but I'd rather use the same words everyone else is using so it will be easier to communicate with them. If Haskell were as great of a language as you say, it would be more popular.
  - groovy2shoes 15y ago
    What you're saying is that you don't like Haskell's syntax because it's not C's syntax. The unfamiliarity card is not a legitimate card in the game of criticism. > I'd rather use the same words everyone else is using so it will be easier to communicate with them. Would you be happier if C was the only language, and everyone just had to use C? > If Haskell were as great of a language as you say, it would be more popular. This is completely non sequitur. Popularity has little to do with the advantages offered by a language. At one time, C was not so popular.
    - debacle 15y ago
      What I'm saying is that C is ubiquitous because it has strong syntax, and Haskell is not because it doesn't. I like C's syntax, but I also like Lisp's and Scala's and SQL's. > Would you be happier if C was the only language, and everyone just had to use C? If C were as powerful as a modern programming language (JavaScript) and had the standardization of a libraries that Perl or PHP has, then I'd be okay with writing C. The only reason I don't is because C has been improved upon. Haskell is a step back. > This is completely non sequitur. Of course it isn't. Popularity has a huge amount to do with the advantages offered by a language. If a language was crap, no one would use it. At one time, C was not very popular, but in the last 20 years almost all of the most popular languages, year after year, have been C or its descendants.
      - groovy2shoes 15y ago
        By now it's clear to me that your argument has reduced to "I personally don't like Haskell's syntax, therefore Haskell cannot generally be a good language." If you don't want to use Haskell, that's fine. Don't use it. If you have legitimate criticism, I'd like to hear it.
TheBoff 15y ago
Can you explain what you dislike about it? It's a different operator, certainly. I'm pretty sure that it has an "odd" shape, because indexing a list in Haskell is potentially O(n). The operator itself is essentially a warning...