3 ms·
If you like Scala but find it too scattered then there's always Haskell* :) (*) Not that there aren't a thousand reasons to not choose Haskell. This is merely
by tel 12y ago
If you like Scala but find it too scattered then there's always Haskell* :)
(*) Not that there aren't a thousand reasons to not choose Haskell. This is merely obligatory temptation dangling.
- dyeje 12y agoTook me a minute to parse that triple negative.
- tel 12y agoYeah, I don't blame you. English is the worst. let P = let S = { s ∈ Reasons | s : ¬ Choose Haskell } in (S, |S| > 1000) in ¬(¬∃ P)
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- bunderbunder 12y agoOr F#, which is perhaps a more comfortable alternative for people who would otherwise be considering Scala. Incidentally, I've finally started to sink my teeth into Scala with a larger project. So far my impression has been "Very nearly as good a language for functional programming as C#." It's got ML-ish syntax, but the Java-y OOisms are just way too front-and-center for comfort. Case classes and extractor patterns, I'm looking at you.
- sixbrx 12y agoIsn't subtyping OO the principal way to do polymorphism in F#? I ask because the last time I looked, it didn't do type classes, nor ML modules, but maybe that's changed. Scala has a pretty powerful notion of type classes and this is a big part of what gives it a functional feel to me.
- bjz_ 12y agoType classes are pretty orthogonal to FP as far as I can tell. It's probably more that it gives it a "Haskelly feel".
- sixbrx 12y agoI think it's more than that - it's also that type classes allow a type of polymorphism that is not the subtyping polymorphism that mainstream OO depends so heavily on. ML attacks from a different direction with its parameterized modules, but with a similar result. That's why I feel like something's missing from F# in this regard, in comparison to other statically typed functional languages.
- slm_HN 12y agoIt's official. Haskell has become the Beowulf cluster of Hacker News.