Am 15.08.2012 13:10, schrieb Invisible:
>>>> 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?

Operating on mutable lists (or whatever it was you tried back then, and 
ran into a set of libraries that all did it in a different way 
unsuitable for your needs so you resorted to a rant), for instance?


>>> 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...

Still, not every library succeeds in that job to a degree that it can be 
called "simple and elegant". And sometimes that's not due to design 
flaws in the library, but due to the underlying language standing in the 
way.


>> 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

Because there's no such thing as a simple, elegant cover-it-all, maybe?

Post a reply to this message