andrewcoppin at btinternet.com
Wed Jun 20 14:47:54 EDT 2007
Derek Elkins wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 18:49 -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
>> 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.
> Not in my experience. Certainly lists are used all over the place*, but
> I rarely see them abused. Also, "lists" aren't lists in Lisp, they're
> more akin to rose-trees (or going the other way, there are only pairs in
> In practice, almost all Haskell programs use custom defined algebraic
> data types which are usually tree like. Declaring and using data types
> is easier in Haskell than it is in almost any other language.
> * As others have mentioned, lists represent loops and loops are
> extremely common in programming in general.
Um... surely *every* collection type represents a loop?
More information about the Haskell-Cafe