[Haskell-cafe] Cal, Clojure, Groovy, Haskell, OCaml, etc.

Tony Morris tonymorris at gmail.com
Wed Sep 30 21:42:21 EDT 2009

There is a significant difference between:

* A $ function without a type system
* A statically checked $ function
* A $ keyword without static checking

Curt Sampson wrote:
> On 2009-09-30 13:45 -0300 (Wed), namekuseijin wrote:
>> The Perl call is spot on.  Specially because Haskell has been
>> incorporating so much syntatic sugar that it's almost looking Perlish
>> noise already: [examples deleted]
> No, I disagree with your particular examples; they're bog-standard
> Haskell that don't use any syntatic sugar (. and $ are just library
> functions), and I find them perfectly fine to read. Note that nothing
> in there is inconsistent or interpreted in any sort of exceptional way,
> unlike many things that look like that in Perl.
> It does take time to learn to read that sort of stuff, but once you've
> got it, "simplifying" this sort of thing would only make it harder to
> read, because it would be more verbose without saying anything more.
> Haskell's concision is one of its most important strengths.
> (Incidently, a good exercise for learning to understand stuff like that
> might be to go thorugh it and convert it to use parens instead of $,
> full application instead of ., and so on.)
> cjs

Tony Morris

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list