3 ms·

If Haskell is the C++ of functional languages, what, in your opinion, is the C of functional languages ?

• scott_s 13y ago
  Scheme.
  • raverbashing 13y ago
    I want the Python of functional languages
    • grayrest 13y ago
      That would be Clojure.
    • quchen 13y ago
      Also Scheme. :-)
    • etanol 13y ago
      Or Hy: http://docs.hylang.org/en/latest/language/api.html http://docs.hylang.org/en/latest/language/api.html :-]
• danieldk 13y ago
  Except that Scala already is ;). Haskell pretty much sticks to functional programming and resisted adopting other paradigms (e.g. OO via O'Haskell). Scala, on the other hand seems to adopt as many paradigms as C++.
• michaelochurch 13y ago
  The C of statically typed functional languages is OCaml.
  • asdasf 13y ago
    Which is more complicated and less expressive than haskell? That seems like a pretty bizarre choice.
    • michaelochurch 13y ago
      When I used OCaml, I almost never used the object system. I didn't need it. The "full" OCaml is pretty complicated, but most of the libraries don't force the "O" on you. (That said, if you're going to use OCaml, you should use the Jane Street libraries, which are far better than the standard library.)
      • asdasf 13y ago
        >When I used OCaml, I almost never used the object system. I didn't need it. Me neither, but it is still part of the language and adds a ton of complexity. Which makes the analogy of ocaml to C vs haskell to C++ quite poor. >The "full" OCaml is pretty complicated Precisely the point. The full C++ is pretty complicated too. The full haskell is far simpler than either. >That said, if you're going to use OCaml, you should use the Jane Street libraries They didn't exist when I used ocaml, and I would never go back to ocaml now.
    • infruset 13y ago
      What do you mean, less expressive?