|
|
|
|
|
by nightski
6009 days ago
|
|
The syntax too complicated bit bugs me. Haskell syntax is very minimal, more lisp like than C like. The syntax is "different" than traditional imperative languages but coming from Lisp/Scheme/F# background it was very easy to pick up. I am not sure I buy that lazy evaluation is too costly either, as it is actually what buys performance gains in some areas. That was a broad statement and it doesn't hold everywhere but I just want to say that it isn't cut & dry like you make it sound. I would say the only argument he makes against Haskell that I totally agree with is its inference engine. I have very mixed feelings about type inference. It is very nice because it makes everything so concise, yet I often find myself writing function types just for clarity. Also type errors are not fun to track down as he shows in the slide. |
|
Please note I said "nervous", not "I would never consider it ever". Another couple of years of development and I might be less nervous; Haskell has been making a lot of progress lately. Some stuff in the absolute inner core might still be C or Assembler, but I could see the bulk switching to some other language.