> You keep asserting that it's easier in Haskell to do some of these
> things than it is in Erlang or C#. But you've yet to actually provide
> any evidence of this beyond vigorous assertions.

And you keep asserting that Haskell is a bad language, without much 
evidence either. :-P

Erlang is /obviously/ much better at hot code swapping than Haskell 
currently is. This is not in debate. But you keep asserting that Haskell 
/can never/ be as good as Erlang. Because it's somehow /impossible/ for 
somebody to come up with a Haskell implementation that does what Erlang 
does. You still haven't explained why that is.

Likewise, C#.Net gives you access to the entire .Net platform library. 
This has vastly more functionality than what's available for Haskell. 
This is because C# is MORE POPULAR than Haskell, and NOT because Haskell 
is badly designed.

My argument was never about how much external stuff is available for 
Haskell. My argument was that Haskell is a clean, simple language that 
manages to solve the same problems that other languages can only solve 
using a vast swathe of complicated "features" hard-wired into the language.

C# has methods and inheritance and subtype polymorphism and dynamic 
dispatch and delegates and lambda abstractions and broken multiple 
inheritance and reflection and... Haskell just has first-class 
functions. Solves all of the above, with a fraction of the complexity. 
It's simpler to explain, it's simpler to use, it's simpler to read. 
That's what I'm talking about.

Post a reply to this message