[blagund]

My notes on using Haskell: mostly agree with the article, but I came to embrace rolling my own tooling, some abstraction on top of cabal. I use my abstractions, not what whoever would force on me. Use Haskell as your typed lisp.. with all the pros and cons.

On production use... Don't even get me started. Will work, but need shedding blood.

[massysett]

Typed lisp? Unlike Lisp, Haskell has enormously complex syntax, so generating code in it is a huge hassle.

Template Haskell is something to use only when absolutely necessary, while Lispers write macros without a second thought.

I considered your method of writing my own tooling, but have had a vague feeling that Lisp works better for this frame of mind.

[spopejoy]

Haskell has almost no syntax, even `$` is a userland function. Are you arguing against the feature of allowing ad-hoc infix operators in userland?

[massysett]

"almost no syntax" is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. I wouldn't consider these sections from the Haskell 2010 Report to have "almost no syntax."

https://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/haskell2010/haskellch3....

https://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/haskell2010/haskellch4....

https://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/haskell2010/haskellch5....

Dealing with this in Template Haskell is unwieldy at best.