11 ms·
Do you know any other functional language? If not, it's a problem not with syntax (Haskell syntax perfectly fits its semantics), but with what is actually going
by dmytrish 13y ago
Do you know any other functional language? If not, it's a problem not with syntax (Haskell syntax perfectly fits its semantics), but with what is actually going on in the program. Without firm grasp of FP concepts (recursion, currying, partial application, abstract data types, etc) almost any Haskell code seems to be alien.
I find a lot of people complaining about Haskell syntax without understanding how deeply different this language is from "usual" languages.
- IsTom 13y agoI think the problem might be also things that look like syntax to somebody who is not used to Haskell, but are just usual functions like ($) (<*>) ($!) and whatnot.
- Peaker 13y agoI really wish Haskell syntax was extended to allow special forms ("case", "do", etc) to be ordinary function arguments and not just infix function arguments. This would remove a significant portion of the $ signs in Haskell programs, as so many of them are just padding for "do", "case", etc.
- cschneid 13y agoI agree. There are a fair number of symbols out there. And really, how do you pronounce: ">>=", "<<=", "<*>", ".", and such. I know them now, but discoverability is pretty low on those functions.
- bazzargh 13y agoAnd Control.Lens introduces around 20 more symbols like this. It does at times feel like reading perl without 'use English;'
- anuragramdasan 13y agoYes I do know FPs a great deal. I DO NOT harbor any kind of hate towards Haskell, just never found it easy to understand(or read, to be more specific). Also this link makes me want to learn it more than ever now.