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