Re:Lisp and Haskell (2017)
by Buttons840 on Sunday July 15, 2018 @12:20PM
(#17535849)
> Haskell code can be totally unreadable, using concepts which take weeks to learn – which is... not so great.
I don't think it's fair to say something is "not so great" because it takes more than a few weeks to learn. That logic leads to a sad place. You suggest using Lisp and maybe Rust, but both of those languages would probably take more than a few weeks to learn.
Also, you could just use the IO type on every function in Haskell, and thus eliminate the separation between pure and impure code. You'd only have to a type a few extra characters here and there, which isn't ideal, but is acceptable while being pragmatic.
Haskell has had a default package manager, called "cabal", for many (15+ ?) years.
I don't think it's fair to say something is "not so great" because it takes more than a few weeks to learn. That logic leads to a sad place. You suggest using Lisp and maybe Rust, but both of those languages would probably take more than a few weeks to learn.
Also, you could just use the IO type on every function in Haskell, and thus eliminate the separation between pure and impure code. You'd only have to a type a few extra characters here and there, which isn't ideal, but is acceptable while being pragmatic.
Haskell has had a default package manager, called "cabal", for many (15+ ?) years.