[Haskell-beginners] sometimes Haskell isn't what you want
jays at panix.com
Mon Sep 10 23:23:51 CEST 2012
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012, Dennis Raddle <dennis.raddle at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sadly, I've decided Haskell is not the right language for my current
> project. Python is better. I need to hack together data, and strict typing
> is getting in the way. Most of my algorithms are better served with
> imperative/mutable-data. I learned a lot about Haskell trying to do it, but
> my knowledge of the language is not quiet good enough and I feel like I'm
> fighting the language. Python is better. For now.
I always recommend Scheme.
It is like Haskell in one respect:
The Scheme Tribes keep the Ritual and the Law of Lambda.
Scheme is different from Haskell in two respects:
We Lispers do all our coding under the Great Functor, the Great
Functor from Code to Objects in the Lisp World.
For most Scheme systems, the Type Sub-System calculates less at
Robert Harper has a new textbook available at
and here is a useful notice of the book
ad missing the Great Functor: See remarks on "symbols" in the
section 32.3 on page 321, and the discussion of observational
equivalence in section 47.1 on page 498. A Lisper reading these
sections might say "Ah, the Great Functor is worthy of study by
New Type Theorists too. We Lispers consider a symbol to be a
symbol first, and nothing else until you pass across one or more
functors, and then the symbol might become many different
ad "dynamic typing" vs "static typing": Professor Harper's blog
deals with this. I think the claim made, that "dynamic typing"
is a special case of "static typing", is, when sympathetically
More information about the Beginners