2 ms·
I have a few years of experiene with Haskell, and recently started Nimrod. It's an imperative language, so the differences are huge of course. I'm more producti
by defg 12y ago
I have a few years of experiene with Haskell, and recently started Nimrod. It's an imperative language, so the differences are huge of course. I'm more productive in Nimrod. The syntax is great, similar to Python. Nimrod compiles to C without external dependencies, which makes it easy to deploy and easy to bind C libraries. Nimrod's metaprogramming is definitely worth checking out too.
- lmm 12y agoPlease be more explicit and specific. Are you saying that the Nimrod imperative style makes some problems easier to solve (can you give an example?), or does "productive" mean something else? What exactly is the metaprogramming good for?
- dom96 12y agoI have also used Haskell in the past. Been using Nimrod for a couple of years now. I agree with defg: the differences are huge. But the great thing about Nimrod is how flexible it is. That's precisely where metaprogramming comes into play, while some features found in functional programming languages are missing from Nimrod they can be implemented fairly easily using Nimrod's macros. For example I have recently implemented syntax sugar for anonymous functions using macros (http://build.nimrod-lang.org/docs/future.html http://build.nimrod-lang.org/docs/future.html). I do however find the imperative style of programming more efficient, when working with Haskell I always felt like I was fighting it. So perhaps Nimrod may not be for you, but it's still definitely worth checking out!