Alex Ferguson wrote:
> > > > 4) Cleaner more natural syntax.
> > >
> > > More like C++, you mean?
> >
> > Or Java. Although many OO things can be done in Haskell C++ and Java
> > syntax is more natural more doing OO.
>
> If I sound a tad skeptical about some of your suggestions, it may be
> because you do seem to have something of the running undercurrent
> in your posts that what Haskell _really_ needs to be is C++ with some
> functional bits and bobs added on, which instantly gets my defensive
> instincts going, as it sounds, without wanting to provoke Language
> Wars here, like a truly alarming prescription for a language design,
> and not one very compatible with Haskell as it's currently constituted.
I would like to be able to do the things in Haskell that I can do in C++
but currently Haskell's type system is too simple to allow me to do
them. There are also some things I can't do in C++ but really wish I
could, I also wish I could do those things with Haskell. I am not
saying C++ is an elegant language, however it is a powerful one. I
would like to have that power in Haskell.
> In short, I'm unaware of any way in which C++ syntax is 'more natural',
> other than in the sense of 'for a C++ programmer', or 'cleaner' -- at all.
For most things C++ is not. However for representing OO in some areas
C++ is cleaner. Java is an evern cleaner language for OO as that what
it is based around. When I think of them I will send some examples to
this list.
Once again:
Haskell for *most* things has far cleaner syntax than just about any
other language out there. However, OO is not one of them.
--
Kevin Atkinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
