Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GHC 8.0.1 Haskell Compiler Released

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GHC 8.0.1 Haskell Compiler Released

    Phoronix: GHC 8.0.1 Haskell Compiler Released

    Developers behind the Glasgow Haskell Compiler announced their first "super-major version" of the compiler in six years...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...8.0.1-Released

  • #2
    I looked into Haskell but it has a horrible syntax.
    I also looked into F# and it looks pretty bad too.

    Is there any nice functional language?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
      Is there any nice functional language?
      Hard to tell without knowing what you dislike about F#/Haskell syntax.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by uid313 View Post
        I looked into Haskell but it has a horrible syntax.
        I also looked into F# and it looks pretty bad too.

        Is there any nice functional language?
        Then perhaps functional programming just isn't for you.
        Both Haskell and F# have pretty standard syntax for a functional language. Nothing horrible about it.

        Have you tried writing some simple command line tools in either of them? The way I got started with Haskell was by re-implementing some of the GNU coreutils in it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by uid313 View Post
          I looked into Haskell but it has a horrible syntax.
          I also looked into F# and it looks pretty bad too.

          Is there any nice functional language?
          Lisps are pretty messed up, but something like Scala (yes, I know) or Erlang is actually readable by normal human beings.

          Comment


          • #6
            Scheme it is not really functional but most people probably use it in a functional way. But if you want a beautiful extremely clean syntax almost without syntactic sugar nothing beat scheme. Usually not especially practical for the real world thought. I think Haskell is the nicest of the pure functional languages I have tried. I have a hard time to see anything dreadful with the syntax haskell use. If you don't like haskell and not F# probably mean you don't like caml or ml derived language. This exclude almost everything really functional maybe with the exception of scheme. Alternativly you have multi paradigm language like c#, ocaml, scala etc.
            Last edited by Akka; 05-23-2016, 07:15 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bug77 View Post

              Lisps are pretty messed up, but something like Scala (yes, I know) or Erlang is actually readable by normal human beings.
              I don't think Lisp is difficult to learn, really. The language has warts, but the syntax is relatively easy to figure out: the first item in a set of parenthesis is usually a function call, and the rest of the items are the parameters. Everything else builds from there.

              My biggest problem with Haskell is the same as my biggest problem with Scala, even though the languages have a lot of differences: developers can abuse operator overloading until your code has so many symbols that I start looking for NO CARRIER. (I guess I should explain the joke for anyone that hasn't used a dialup internet connection: when a modem connection failed it was typical to see a string of random ASCII characters and then NO CARRIER on the connection dialog. e.g. {#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER)

              Haskell or Scala with little operator overloading or none isn't hard to read at all.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Michael_S View Post

                I don't think Lisp is difficult to learn, really. The language has warts, but the syntax is relatively easy to figure out: the first item in a set of parenthesis is usually a function call, and the rest of the items are the parameters. Everything else builds from there.

                My biggest problem with Haskell is the same as my biggest problem with Scala, even though the languages have a lot of differences: developers can abuse operator overloading until your code has so many symbols that I start looking for NO CARRIER. (I guess I should explain the joke for anyone that hasn't used a dialup internet connection: when a modem connection failed it was typical to see a string of random ASCII characters and then NO CARRIER on the connection dialog. e.g. {#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER)

                Haskell or Scala with little operator overloading or none isn't hard to read at all.
                I don't know, maybe it's because I've had so many years of imperative programming before I met functional, but Lisp, Scheme, Clojure I have a really hard time reading; Prolog too, but I don't really remember if it was because of the same reasons. And a harder time writing. Haskell I know nothing about, but Scala and Erlang felt more comfortable to me.

                And you get bonus points for "NO CARRIER". That and expecting to see what speed will be negotiated were the bread an butter of dial-up networking.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Michael_S View Post

                  I don't think Lisp is difficult to learn, really. The language has warts, but the syntax is relatively easy to figure out: the first item in a set of parenthesis is usually a function call, and the rest of the items are the parameters. Everything else builds from there.

                  My biggest problem with Haskell is the same as my biggest problem with Scala, even though the languages have a lot of differences: developers can abuse operator overloading until your code has so many symbols that I start looking for NO CARRIER. (I guess I should explain the joke for anyone that hasn't used a dialup internet connection: when a modem connection failed it was typical to see a string of random ASCII characters and then NO CARRIER on the connection dialog. e.g. {#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER)

                  Haskell or Scala with little operator overloading or none isn't hard to read at all.
                  From what I can tell Haskell doesn't have a lot of metaprogramming features so operator overloading is one of the few "abusable" tools to get a particular behavior out of some special syntax. Contrast with scheme macros that let you bend the language in almost arbitrary ways.
                  Last edited by ormaaj; 05-23-2016, 11:08 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by unixfan2001 View Post

                    Then perhaps functional programming just isn't for you.
                    Both Haskell and F# have pretty standard syntax for a functional language. Nothing horrible about it.
                    Semicolons as list delimiters in F# make me feel like puking. (I know, I shouldn't care).

                    Also I hate significant whitespace. Haskell's indenting rules are painful to learn.
                    Last edited by ormaaj; 05-23-2016, 11:15 PM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X