Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > Tracy R Reed wrote: >> Haskell! > > No. The lack of mutation as a first class language construct is too > intrusive. > > To become useful, Haskell will be replaced by something like Haskell but > with some of the sharp "purity" edges filed off.
You know, I've been relearning Haskell of late, and I have to say that it has evolved in to something genuinely useful. Frankly, by treating mutation as a special case, it puts the focus in the right place, where most of the bugs come from, simplifies concurrency, transactions, etc. It also allows you to do the kind of transformations of functions that really end up being helpful. It does still have some rough edges, as the language still needs some maturing, but there is nothing about it that makes it inherently bad beyond programmers having difficulty with functional languages in general. >> Followed by Erlang. > I just wish it had a JVM-based version. It would give me a lot more > confidence in its long term prospects. JVM's have their own issues with concurrency. ;-) I'll go with Erlang's runtime. --Chris -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
