Am 14.08.2012 14:57, schrieb Invisible:

>> Oh, and don't bother to mention Haskell in this context; you've done a
>> fair share of ranting about that language already to disqualify it for
>> the position of "an elegant design that solves everything [without
>> accumulating non-elegant layers of additional features]".
>
> So what do you think Haskell solves inelegantly?
>
> It's no secret that the libraries lack vast swathes of important
> functionality, or that some of the build tools leave a lot to be
> desired. But the core language itself? It isn't perfect, but it's a
> damn-site more elegant than any other programming language I've ever
> laid eyes on.

That may well be true, and I actually believe it, but as soon as you 
want to do some serious programming you'll /need/ more than that elegant 
core; you'll need those libraries of which /you/ yourself said that 
various of them suck for this and that reason and none of them gives you 
exactly what you need.

An elegant core language may be nice to have, but if as a consequence it 
takes you ages to get the job done, unless you make use of plenty 
non-elegant language extensions or libraries, it doesn't /really/ 
qualify as "a simpler, more elegant design that solves everything".

Post a reply to this message