Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
allbery at ece.cmu.edu
Tue Jun 19 18:49:48 EDT 2007
On Jun 19, 2007, at 16:23 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Jens Fisseler wrote:
>> The equivalent of Haskell's list data type would be the array type
>> of most imperative or object-oriented languages. Both are some
>> sort of basic collection type, good for their own sake, but if you
>> want more specialized collection types, you have to implement them.
> Maybe it's just a culture thing then... In your typical OOP
> language, you spend five minutes thinking "now, what collection
> type shall I use here?" before going on to actually write the code.
> In Haskell, you just go "OK, so I'll put a list here..."
Haskell is, in many ways, a descendant of Lisp. This does tend to
lead to lists being *the* collection type, in my experience: sure,
others get used, but lists are the ones you see in examples and such.
brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] allbery at kf8nh.com
system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] allbery at ece.cmu.edu
electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH
More information about the Haskell-Cafe