3 ms·
Sure -- basically what you said: http://science.raphael.poss.name/rust-for-functional-programmers.html#straightforward-equivalences http://science.raphael.poss.
by thirsteh 12y ago
Sure -- basically what you said: http://science.raphael.poss.name/rust-for-functional-programmers.html#straightforward-equivalences http://science.raphael.poss.name/rust-for-functional-program...
Of course it's not exactly Haskell, but it's arguably closer to FP than it is to C, yet manages to be approachable to imperative programmers. I think this is fantastic.
- nightski 12y agoThat would be a really tough argument to make. It goes to great lengths to give control over memory layout and control and lacks a LOT of the features of Haskell's type system. It's a lot more like a prettier D than Haskell. Not only that with every iteration it has been moving farther away from the FP paradigm.
- naasking 12y agoI think you mean GHC's type system, since Rust is arguably quite close to Haskell 98 in spirit, ie. algebraic types, lambdas, pattern matching, traits = single parameter type classes.