Mirko Rahn wrote:
More important: Correct me, if I'm wrong, but as far as I understand
java, it is still impossible in your solution to evaluate the equivalent of
head $ mirror $ rel [ (i,i) | i <- [0..] ]
in finite time, that is, your MirrorRel is not lazy in the elements. You
have to build this also by hand and your code becomes even longer and
more complex.
Yes, that's true. Java is strict, and each bit of laziness has to be
introduced by hand. Just as Haskell is lazy, and each bit of strictness
has to be introduced by hand. It's not clear for a
non-Haskell-programmer that the haskell aproach is better, and i don't
think that it becomes clear by showing a single program wich uses laziness.
(Java developers who don't understand Java's advanced features like
generics and anonymous classes may not be able to write or understand
the above written Java solution; but do you expect them to understand
Haskell?)
Add 1: This statement contradicts your "easyness" claim!?
I don't think so. I was able to write a short (modulo syntactical
overhad of the Java language) and modular Java solution without
consulting reference manuals, drawing diagrams or something.
Add 2: In contrast, the Haskell solution does'nt uses "advanced Haskell
features" (whatever this might be), it consists of 6 lines of plain
Haskell 98 only.
The Haskell solution has no need for "advanced Haskell features" because
Haskell is an advanced programming language. This can be good (no need
to implement advanced features yourself) or bad (fear of what the
advanced features do with your simple-looking code).
Tillmann
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
