I'd suggest, in addition to the symbols, renaming some of the fundamental types and concepts, like Monad. I would violently agree that Monad is the correct term, but try to communicate with a commodity software developer sometime (or a government acquisition professional). RWH goes a long way to explaining the concepts, as do the countless Web pages dedicated to explaining the monad concept.
Better examples for SYB and arrows would also help. Haskell is a great language with solid mathematical underpinnings. I'm a big fan of it. But, adoption is the key to success; need to make the ordinary easy to understand unless the community wants to be relegated to Scala status. -----Original message----- From: Andrew Cowie <and...@operationaldynamics.com> To: haskell-cafe@haskell.org Sent: Tue, Dec 20, 2011 18:05:18 PST Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] If you'd design a Haskell-like language, what would you do different? On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 16:53 -0500, Matthew Farkas-Dyck wrote: > Two of three ain't bad (^_~) Now we just need λ to replace \, → to replace ->, and ≠ to replace /= (which still looks like division assignment no matter how hard I squint my eyes. 25 years of C and C derived languages is hard to forget). Hey, forget replacing, wouldn't it be wonderful if the compiler would just accept them as synonyms? AfC Sydney _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
