3 ms·
On the other hand, Haskell strings are "like Haskell" (ie. they're lists like almost everything else), and it's actually because of that they're such a joy to u
by jarcane 12y ago
On the other hand, Haskell strings are "like Haskell" (ie. they're lists like almost everything else), and it's actually because of that they're such a joy to use.
"Strings as lists of chars" in a language with first-class functions is an absolute pleasure.
- tome 12y agoThat's a rather starry-eyed view of Haskell's String type. It has terrible performance in terms of both memory and time, which is why we now have Text instead.
- cousin_it 12y agoI think the Haskell community has realized by now that they should've made strings an abstract data type, with the freedom to change implementations in the future, like it's done in Java. See the ByteString and Text libraries, and the OverloadedStrings language extension.