3 ms·
> Scala steals a whole lot of things for Haskell, trying to make it actually practical. LINQ is "practical Haskell," so is most of Rust (if "practical" means a
by thirsteh 13y ago
> Scala steals a whole lot of things for Haskell, trying to make it actually practical.
LINQ is "practical Haskell," so is most of Rust (if "practical" means approachable to imperative programmers.)
Besides being on the JVM (which is a big plus), Scala hardly makes anything more practical than it is in Haskell. In fact, Scala programmers tend to migrate to Haskell (and ML languages) rather than the other way around.
- platz 13y agoIf by LINQ you mean the map/filter/fold crew, I think this may be selling Haskell a little short. You could say the same about python. At least F#'s computation expressions give you the full power to create your own monads with it's "computation expressions", and in LINQ things are more statically locked down.
- thirsteh 13y agoRight -- I wasn't sure whether F# would be considered "practical" in this case.
- platz 13y agoI guess F# isn't practical if you're building a WPF application (I agree the tooling is lacking). Otherwise it seems like it can do everything C# does (including mutation, classes, interfaces, properties), only with a slightly unfamiliar (at first) syntax.