[Haskell-beginners] Haskell described as a "rigid" language

[Amy de Buitléir]

I'm still sort of a beginner with Haskell, but ere are my thoughts. In the
sense you mean it, yes Haskell could be considered inflexible because it
makes it easier to implement a functional design and harder to implement an
imperative design. But if I were to go back to Java now, I would find it
very inflexible because it makes it very difficult to functional design, and
very easy to do imperative design. I would miss features like functors,
monads, and lazy evaluation.



On 18 May 2010 01:22, aditya siram <aditya.siram at gmail.com> wrote:

> Haskell is considered by many as an inflexible language [1] . I
> describe a flexible language as one that supports any design you want
> (even a bad one) - if you can think it, you can code it and run it
> (bugs and all).
>
> I share this opinion about Haskell but pursue it because I feel that
> one day it will open up and let me think more about the problem and
> less about how to get GHC to approve it.
>
> So I guess the question to you practitioners is: Would you agree that
> it is a rigid language as describe in the link below, or is that just
> an illusion that goes away with experience?
>
> -deech
>
> [1]
> http://therighttool.hammerprinciple.com/statements/this-language-has-a-very-rigid-idea-of-how-things-
> _______________________________________________
> Beginners mailing list
> Beginners at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20100517/07dcaaf3/attachment.html