|
In brief: I prefer Haskell, but I think it has its flaws, and I understand why we're not using it as a teaching language. In long: Haskell has much better concrete syntax, better library and tool support, a more active community, and is subjectively nicer to program in. Haskell is lazy, SML eager. Haskell catches a lot of flack about this from SML fans. I think the typical arguments against laziness (makes it hard to reason about space usage; just a special-case of eagerness) are not false but overblown (it's harder but not that hard once you get used to it; and yes, you can simulate laziness in an eager language using thunks etc, but that's a Turing tarpit argument). However, in the end I'm not sure laziness is worth it. Haskell is pure and SML is not. I don't mind the impurity of SML (or any other language), but I think Haskell's purity has some nice side-benefits for a high-level FP language (eg. allows more compiler optimizations). I'm also grateful to it for being the main reason Haskell has support for monads, which I think are a powerful unifying idea well worth their weight even if you don't need them to encapsulate I/O & side-effects. The big difference is, of course, their module systems. Everything Harper says about Haskell in this regard (https://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/modules-mat...) is true, but I don't think it's as big of an issue as he makes out. Typeclasses give you 90% of what you want, in a much more concise package. I've perhaps wanted ML-style modules & functors once or twice when writing Haskell, and I wish I had typeclasses all the time when writing SML. I could say more on this topic, but this response is already overlong. |