|
|
|
|
|
by raiph
2791 days ago
|
|
> You're certainly right, but that doesn't change my point that, by just looking at the code, Haskell seems to have the better solutions for the problems. Sure. But that's an inevitable consequence of what the document aims to achieve. The problems chosen were the ones for which Haskell had simpler solutions. The point of the document was to help someone who is already motivated to learn P6 and knows Haskell to get to grips with P6. If the point were to motivate someone who knows Haskell to want to learn P6 then the examples chosen would be ones for which the P6 solution is better than the Haskell one. |
|