Am 15.08.2012 10:11, schrieb Invisible:

>> Right. But it has something to do with whether the language "solves
>> everything" [for practical purposes].
>
> I was referring only to the design of the language itself, not the
> libraries that go with it, nor any of the various other tools required
> to make a language generally useful. It's no secret that Haskell fails
> spectacularly on that count.

I'm reiterating: I don't doubt that the Haskell /core language/ is 
simple and elegant. I doubt that it "solves everything".

As soon as you've dealt with the "solves everything" part, we'll talk 
again, and see if the "simple and elegant" also applies to that one. My 
claim is that the combo isn't possible.

THAT is the point I'm trying to get through to you.

Post a reply to this message