3 ms·
This has to be the shallowest possible analysis you could have given this issue. No explanation of the tradeoffs or exploration of why they took the routes they
by chc 14y ago
This has to be the shallowest possible analysis you could have given this issue. No explanation of the tradeoffs or exploration of why they took the routes they did. Just, "Haskell has, like, syntax man. Syntax is hard."
Additionally, the explanation of Clojure syntax is woefully incomplete — going by this article, {:age 1} and #inst "@2012-02-12T01:02:03.456" aren't valid Clojure. In reality, Clojure is very syntax-heavy for a Lisp, and most Lisps still have more complicated syntax than the simplistic "Things go between parentheses, the first of which is evaluated as a function and the rest of which are arguments" — look at just about any macro definition in any Lisp to see a fair bit of syntax beyond parentheses.
- martinced 14y agoThis has to be the shallowest possible analysis you could have given this issue Not disagreeing here. Moreover I'm not really sure comparing these two on syntax makes a lot of sense: comparing an homoiconic language with a non-homoiconic one from the syntax point of view is weird. Then the main difference between these two languages is related to typing IMHO. If you want the benefits of homoiconicity in Haskell, there's a Liskell project (not sure how good it is yet but it certainly is interesting).