|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible wrote:
> All of this makes me wonder... What would happen if somebody designed a
> language which was exactly like Haskell, but had syntax like Pascal or
> something? What if it didn't use terms like "monad" and "functor" and
> "existential quantification", but used something more concrete-sounding?
>
> Of course, the really bizare (and wonderful!) thing about Haskell isn't
> its syntax, it's the ways in which you can use it. But I wonder... If
> you dressed Haskell up in sheep's clothing, how long would it take
> normal programmers to realise that what you're getting them to do is
> actually crazy? >:-)
Just for giggles, I'm designing this language. So far I've implemented
half the standard libraries with it. The results are... interesting. The
code becomes 85% more verbose, but I wonder if it makes any difference
to the level of comprehendability.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |