Am 15.08.2012 12:36, schrieb Invisible:
>>> 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".
>
> It solves every problem of core application logic. It doesn't solve the
> problem of talking to the outside world. (That's the job of the
> libraries, and once they currently don't do so well.)

Neither does it solve every problem of core application logic in a 
/practical/ manner. At least that's the impression I get from your 
occasional rants. So for those things you'll need libraries, too.

>> 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.
>
> You somehow believe that writing a bunch of libraries would make the
> language no longer elegant?

I believe that writing a sufficient bunch of libraries to care for all 
needs would make the /combo/ non-elegant in various places.

That said, if the core language was /that/ simple, elegant and 
cover-all, how come nobody has managed to put an easy-to-use cover-all 
library for X yet? (X := any feature already implemented in multiple 
libraries but with different severe limitations to each of them. Dunno 
which example it was you did your rant over - mutable lists or some such?)

Post a reply to this message