>>> 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.

So what application logic problems aren't solved by Haskell then?

>> 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.

And I believe you're wrong.

The purpose of a library is to make stuff easy, after all...

> 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?)

If C is so great for writing operating systems, where are there so many 
different, incompatible operating systems? :-P

Post a reply to this message