On 2008-11-13, Philip Snowberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 2008-11-10, Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> And Haskell just sucks for the moderately object-oriented approach that is >>> "obvious" for certain things. >> >> OTOH, Haskell and Parsec [1] are simply wonderful for writing parsers. > > Do you find that's the case because of pattern-matching function > definition syntax ?
In case of Parsec, I think it's more about how monads can be used to create domain specific languages (DSLs), and the monad syntax. Of course, one can write primitive parsers with the language's pattern matcher too, but Parsec is even more convenient than for anything except the most trivial parsers. That said, pattern matching and algebraic data types / tagged unions are a very nice thing. If there are two features I'd most like C to have without significantly altering its nature, it would be tagged unions and subtyping (i.e. the most basic component of inheritance). -- "[Fashion] is usually a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." -- Oscar Wilde "The computer industry is the only industry that is more fashion-driven than women's fashion." -- RMS
