Zed,
while I don't disagree regarding the clean and consistent syntax of
Haskell, do you realize that some people would argue that camels are horses
designed by committee too? :)
While designing by committee guarantees agreement across a large number of
people, it does not always ensure efficiency, as committees may lead to
poor compromises, sometimes.
However, Haskell may be an example of a good case of design-by-committee
computer language.
Flavio
Flavio Villanustre
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Zed Becker zed.bec...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Haskell, is arguably the best example of a design-by-committee language.
The syntax is clean and most importantly, consistent. The essence of a
purely functional programming is maintained, without disturbing its real
world capacity.
To all the people who revise the Haskell standard, and implement the
language,
1.
Promise to me, and the rest of the community, that you will keep
up the good effort :)
2.
Promise to me, and the rest of the community, that Haskell will
always spiritually remain the same clean, consistent programming
language
as it is now!
Regards,
Zed Becker
___
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