3 ms·

Also, it has a fairly shallow learning curve when it comes to syntax (compared to say, lisp), at least for someone coming from a C family background. I learned

Also, it has a fairly shallow learning curve when it comes to syntax (compared to say, lisp), at least for someone coming from a C family background. I learned Haskell after a period of doing a lot of Python programming, and I find the syntax of the two very similar.

yarrel 13y ago
Haskell has a much more baroque syntax than Lisp and it really doesn't compare to the C family syntactically or executionally. At best it's a kind of Pythonized Prolog that thinks Perl is a model rather than a warning.
chrismonsanto 13y ago
I would prefer Haskell with a Lisp syntax. Haskell's syntax adds a lot of accidental complexity to the language. My #1 complaint is how infix operators can be imported and assigned precedence/associativity. It is nearly impossible for a human to parse unfamiliar code, let alone understand it. And the sheer size and complexity of the grammar also rears its head when doing non-trivial metaprogramming. We create these problems for ourselves when we write languages with complicated grammars. And for what? So people don't have to learn how to read Lisp code? A lot of the gain of Haskell is that the super strong type system constrains the form of programs, making it easier to reason about them. Well, constraining the syntax has similar benefits. One being that now my editor can more effectively "reason" about the surface syntax of a program. See Paredit, which enables functionality that isn't possible unless you can easily find the extent of an expression.
- lgas 13y ago
  There is Liskell: https://github.com/haskell-lisp/liskell https://github.com/haskell-lisp/liskell
- chongli 13y ago
  Lisp has a lot of syntax complexity that lies hidden under the covers. Sure, symbolic expressions appear regular and uniform but macros are often radically different from functions in syntax, despite looking otherwise identical in application. A big offender in this regard is the loop macro.
nnq 13y ago
> it has a fairly shallow learning curve when it comes to syntax Now imagine a pilot saying: "fighter jets have a fairy shallow learning curve compared to gliders"... Syntax has nothing to do with it and you will never find a language with simpler syntax than Lisps. (and let's just pretend Common Lisp does not exist - I bet you are scared by Lisp because you've seen code written by an experienced CL hacker, and I know, it tends to scare the shit out of you at first sight :) )

yarrel 13y ago

Haskell has a much more baroque syntax than Lisp and it really doesn't compare to the C family syntactically or executionally. At best it's a kind of Pythonized Prolog that thinks Perl is a model rather than a warning.

chrismonsanto 13y ago

I would prefer Haskell with a Lisp syntax. Haskell's syntax adds a lot of accidental complexity to the language. My #1 complaint is how infix operators can be imported and assigned precedence/associativity. It is nearly impossible for a human to parse unfamiliar code, let alone understand it. And the sheer size and complexity of the grammar also rears its head when doing non-trivial metaprogramming. We create these problems for ourselves when we write languages with complicated grammars. And for what? So people don't have to learn how to read Lisp code? A lot of the gain of Haskell is that the super strong type system constrains the form of programs, making it easier to reason about them. Well, constraining the syntax has similar benefits. One being that now my editor can more effectively "reason" about the surface syntax of a program. See Paredit, which enables functionality that isn't possible unless you can easily find the extent of an expression.

lgas 13y ago
There is Liskell: https://github.com/haskell-lisp/liskell https://github.com/haskell-lisp/liskell
chongli 13y ago
Lisp has a lot of syntax complexity that lies hidden under the covers. Sure, symbolic expressions appear regular and uniform but macros are often radically different from functions in syntax, despite looking otherwise identical in application. A big offender in this regard is the loop macro.

nnq 13y ago

> it has a fairly shallow learning curve when it comes to syntax Now imagine a pilot saying: "fighter jets have a fairy shallow learning curve compared to gliders"... Syntax has nothing to do with it and you will never find a language with simpler syntax than Lisps. (and let's just pretend Common Lisp does not exist - I bet you are scared by Lisp because you've seen code written by an experienced CL hacker, and I know, it tends to scare the shit out of you at first sight :) )