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