3 ms·

I cannot agree enough. Someone give me a call when a Haskell-like language with readable syntax appears. I really like the ideas behind Haskell, but the syntax

by tormeh 13y ago

I cannot agree enough. Someone give me a call when a Haskell-like language with readable syntax appears. I really like the ideas behind Haskell, but the syntax is so unfriendly that I cannot be bothered to really start using it. Less special characters, please.

sparkie 13y ago
There really aren't that many special characters (certainly no requirement for non-ascii) in the core language - perhaps the sin is allowing almost unlimited user defined operators in code, which leads to monstrosities like ekmett's lens infix operators: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/lens-4.1.2/docs/Control-Lens-Operators.html http://hackage.haskell.org/package/lens-4.1.2/docs/Control-L... As a lisper, I prefer names and prefix operators - there's a few exceptions where infix operators add improvements to the language, but I dislike having user-defined operators (they make searching a pain, although Hayoo eases some of that).
- wirrbel 13y ago
  I really like scheme & clojure and I think I have done a lot more scheme and clojure than haskell. (And even a alot more of Python). However, I think that Haskell by itself has a great syntax (with some legacy cruft, granted). What is really great is how Haskell enables you to write extremely succinct code by providing powerful abstractions and tools. The fact that you have a type annotation already gives enough meta information in the code that you often can omit a long name. The fact that Haskell functions tend to be short in lines gives you something that is closer to an equation than a command language. I don't know how to put this in words, but I'll try: Naming things well in programming is the most difficult task after mastering the very basics. I think this is because names are not fundamental for algorithms and programs but are like bookmarks for the programmer and their human brain. In C, a function with one-letter argument names is a nightmare, in Haskell, it actually improves readablity over a verbose version with whole-word names. And then, I have seen a lot of functions that were named very specific in terms of a problem the programmer tried to solve at the time, that however where quite generic, or could have been very generic (think of `sort_customers_by_name()` instead of a `sort_by()`. I share your dislike of extreme operator usage. It is a problem that whatever permutation of +-!@#! are used as operators in libraries for functionality that the user rarely needs. But the general approach of haskell for succinctness is a good one.
tragic 13y ago
I have very limited familiarity with Haskell, but I find the syntax pretty clean and readable - I spend most of my time getting my head around functional/lazy/etc semantics, which make my head hurt (in a good way) - that presumably implies that the syntax is successfully exposing those semantics to my poor OO/duck-typing coddled brain. I suppose these things are a matter of taste as much as anything else. But when people talk about a Haskell program being 'elegant', I never think to myself "what, that mess?"

by tormeh 13y ago

sparkie 13y ago

There really aren't that many special characters (certainly no requirement for non-ascii) in the core language - perhaps the sin is allowing almost unlimited user defined operators in code, which leads to monstrosities like ekmett's lens infix operators: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/lens-4.1.2/docs/Control-Lens-Operators.html http://hackage.haskell.org/package/lens-4.1.2/docs/Control-L... As a lisper, I prefer names and prefix operators - there's a few exceptions where infix operators add improvements to the language, but I dislike having user-defined operators (they make searching a pain, although Hayoo eases some of that).

wirrbel 13y ago
I really like scheme & clojure and I think I have done a lot more scheme and clojure than haskell. (And even a alot more of Python). However, I think that Haskell by itself has a great syntax (with some legacy cruft, granted). What is really great is how Haskell enables you to write extremely succinct code by providing powerful abstractions and tools. The fact that you have a type annotation already gives enough meta information in the code that you often can omit a long name. The fact that Haskell functions tend to be short in lines gives you something that is closer to an equation than a command language. I don't know how to put this in words, but I'll try: Naming things well in programming is the most difficult task after mastering the very basics. I think this is because names are not fundamental for algorithms and programs but are like bookmarks for the programmer and their human brain. In C, a function with one-letter argument names is a nightmare, in Haskell, it actually improves readablity over a verbose version with whole-word names. And then, I have seen a lot of functions that were named very specific in terms of a problem the programmer tried to solve at the time, that however where quite generic, or could have been very generic (think of `sort_customers_by_name()` instead of a `sort_by()`. I share your dislike of extreme operator usage. It is a problem that whatever permutation of +-!@#! are used as operators in libraries for functionality that the user rarely needs. But the general approach of haskell for succinctness is a good one.

tragic 13y ago

I have very limited familiarity with Haskell, but I find the syntax pretty clean and readable - I spend most of my time getting my head around functional/lazy/etc semantics, which make my head hurt (in a good way) - that presumably implies that the syntax is successfully exposing those semantics to my poor OO/duck-typing coddled brain. I suppose these things are a matter of taste as much as anything else. But when people talk about a Haskell program being 'elegant', I never think to myself "what, that mess?"