>
> On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 12:30 +0000, rob_at_robmyers.org wrote:
>> There's the execution model and then there's the syntax.
>>
>> Haskell has an excellent execution model with all sorts of functional
>> and type-based goodness. Likewise, Perl has brilliant regexps and IO
>> facilities. They then wrap this in syntax that looks like line noise.
>
> I agree the array/scalar/hash context stuff can make Perl look ugly,
> until you're familiar enough with it to be able to see through it. And
> the inbuilt regex (being largely a language of icons rather than words)
> looks ugly from being so dense (the /x modifier helps).
>
> But what in the syntax of haskell do you find ugly? To me, the syntax
> is incredibly clean and well defined.
Could it be that syntax is purely a matter of taste? I cringe when I hear
someone say "perl is ugly" or whatever - such a ridiculous thing to say,
why can't people say "I find perl to be ugly" instead. It's such a
masculine programmer chest beating thing to state an opinion like it's a
fact like that! :)
Personally I wouldn't choose Haskell, not because of it's syntax, but
because I'm done with static typing. I know that given time I'd grow to
work with the syntax if I had to.
(One of the things I like about PLT Scheme's IDE is that it has a drop
down list of loads of niche languages to switch between - it's like a
difficulty setting!)
cheers,
dave
Received on Fri Jan 04 2008 - 13:18:04 GMT