|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
nemesis wrote:
> I see you're back! :D
You can't see my back. It's invisible. ;-)
>> Why write
>>
>> (define (addn n) (lambda (k) (+ n k)))
>>
>> when you can just say
>>
>> addn n = (+n)
>>
>> ? ;-)
>
> Because in plain Scheme you can't?
I know that. ;-) I'm just being a Haskell whore, as usual.
>> (This is one of the reasons why Haskell's ever-expanding set of
>> features worries me. If people need all these extra features, doesn't
>> that kind of indicate that the language is broken?)
>
> If I'm not wrong, core Haskell is about as clean and simple as plain
> Scheme, both based on lambda calculus. Building upon solid, flexible
> and simple infrastructure is not a bad idea.
Sure. But taking a solid, flexible and simple infrastructure and making
it complex and convoluted isn't such a hot idea.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |