>>> If you consider that this is harder than learning Haskell...
>>
>> I still don't get it: Learning Haskell is *easy*, not hard.
> 
> For some definition of easy and hard. Which may not be the same for 
> everyone in this case :-) Ordinarily people choose the easiest way; yet 
> Haskell does not get that many users.

Learning Haskell is like learning algebra; once you grasp a few basic 
principles, the rest follows from there. It isn't instantly obvious that 
(for example) the solution to ax^2 + bx + c = 0 is x = 1/2a (-b +/ 
Sqrt(b^2 - 4ac)), but if you know the basic principles you can at least 
verify that it works.

Learning C is like learning the works of Shakespear; you just have to 
memorise a huge wedge of stuff. If you come across something you haven't 
memorised... sorry.

As for ordinary people... I think you'll find they choose the *most 
popular* way, which may or may not actually be any good. ;-) (See 
Betamax vs VHS, IE vs Netscape, etc.)

I will say this: Haskell is a great *language*, but the *tools* for it 
are sadly lacking, as are the *libraries*. C may be one of the most 
horrid languages ever invented, but at least it has an insane collection 
of tools and libraries, the like of which few others can match.

>> This presumably doesn't stop a program from segfaulting when you try 
>> to append a string from stdin to a string constant or some such.
> 
> I figure that if you use the std::string class you're safe from that. I 
> haven't tried, though.

Wait... you mean they made it a class?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message