Re:Haskell, Monads and Purity
by imanaccount247 on Saturday October 04, 2014 @01:25PM
(#8409948)
No it is not. Ocaml's objects make it less practical, not more. That is why they are virtually completely unused. At best, for loops are irrelevant. I'd say they are closer to a negative than irrelevant though. What do you mean "more edge cases?" That the language is less safe? How is that practical? Haskell has mutable references too, with the added benefit of them being type safe. And haskell has extensible records, they are just a library like anything else: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/vinyl
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Haskell, Monads and Purity
by methodology on Saturday October 04, 2014 @03:46PM
(#8410416)
> That the language is less safe?
Not necessarily.
> And haskell has extensible records, they are just a library like anything else:
And OCaml has monads, they are just a library like else.
Re:Haskell, Monads and Purity
by imanaccount247 on Sunday October 05, 2014 @12:25AM
(#8411434)
>Not necessarily.
Then what? You made the vague statement, make it not vague.
>And OCaml has monads, they are just a library like else.
And? I did not claim ocaml lacks monads. You claimed haskell lacks extensible records. You do understand that my post was a direct reply to what you said right? Not just some random things I felt like saying for no particular reason.