3 ms·
That just tells me he did it the Haskell way. That doesn't answer the question of why it would be more difficult in other (modern) languages. If you're going t
by jonnybgood 12y ago
That just tells me he did it the Haskell way. That doesn't answer the question of why it would be more difficult in other (modern) languages.
If you're going to make an audacious claim then we need to see evidence to support that claim. The author didn't do this. All the author did was show us a Haskell implementation.
- nothrabannosir 12y agoNo, but he did say "beware, herein lies advocacy." Which is a tongue-in-cheek version of saying "ok, I know, I didn't do my due dilligence, but it's my blog and I love Haskell and I'm excited about this one thing I just built." Not everything is a paper in Nature. I understand your point but he's honest about it just being a propaganda piece. And, frankly, what's wrong with that? Thanks to the author for taking the time to share.
- coldtea 12y ago>And, frankly, what's wrong with that? That it doesn't solve OUR problem, which is "help us chose if Haskell if better", even though it pretends to?
- tel 12y agoI don't see how it doesn't help. It might not help as much as could be asked, but it's a cute example of "real world" Haskell use and he described the parts of it he rather liked.
- platz 12y agoHere's a follow up post from a different author, that continues on this subject, and also explains some of the benefits of the haskell approach: http://nikita-volkov.github.io/a-taste-of-state-parsers-are-easy/ http://nikita-volkov.github.io/a-taste-of-state-parsers-are-...