[Haskell-cafe] Why Not Haskell?

[Robert Dockins]

On Aug 8, 2006, at 5:36 PM, Albert Lai wrote:

> "Brian Hulley" <brianh at metamilk.com> writes:
>
>> Also, the bottom line imho is that Haskell is a difficult language to
>> understand, and this is compounded by the apparent cleverness of
>> unreadable code like:
>>
>>      c = (.) . (.)
>>
>> when a normal person would just write:
>>
>>      c f g a b = f (g a b)
>
> All mainstream languages are also difficult to understand, with
> similarly clever, unreadable code.  Let's have a fun quiz!  Guess the
> mainstream languages in question:

[snip]

> 2. What language allows you to test primality in constant runtime?
>    That is, move all the work to compile time, using its polymorphism.

GHC-Haskell (with enough extensions enabled)?  We're most of the way  
there already with type arithmetic.  I bet putting together a nieve  
primality test would be pretty doable.  In fact, I suspect that GHC's  
type-checker is turing-complete with MPTCs, fundeps, and undecidable  
instances.  I've been contemplating the possibility of embedding the  
lambda calculus for some time (anybody done this already?)

Oops.  I see now the qualifier "mainstream".  The point still stands,  
however.


Rob Dockins

Speak softly and drive a Sherman tank.
Laugh hard; it's a long way to the bank.
           -- TMBG