3 ms·
Hah! yes. Maybe I should have put it the way you did. My view of Haskell is the same as a non-Lispers view of Lisp. Cry about too much parens and it making thi
by anuragramdasan 13y ago
Hah! yes. Maybe I should have put it the way you did.
My view of Haskell is the same as a non-Lispers view of Lisp. Cry about too much parens and it making things difficult to understand. Doesn't mean the language needs to be changed. I am all in for learning Haskell although most introductions to haskell are really time consuming and dense, so I never just did it. Which is where I was really glad that this tutorial was put up.
Hating any language which actually does serve its purpose is pretty stupid. If anyone actually has some issues understanding a sightly different but very well respected language, then the fault is mostly with that person and not the language.
- doorhammer 13y agoI think lisp is a really good example for how I feel with haskell, and one I'm more familiar with. When I first started learning lisp, the syntax was foreign, and while lisp syntax is arguably really really simple, composition with that syntax is a little weird if you're not used to it. Yet, at the same time, the syntax is a fundamental part of the language, especially with respect to homoiconicity, simplicity and macros. It was a time-sink to get used to it, but totally worth it.
- anuragramdasan 13y agovery much agreed.