I'm still sort of a beginner with Haskell, but ere are my thoughts. In the sense you mean it, yes Haskell could be considered inflexible because it makes it easier to implement a functional design and harder to implement an imperative design. But if I were to go back to Java now, I would find it very inflexible because it makes it very difficult to functional design, and very easy to do imperative design. I would miss features like functors, monads, and lazy evaluation.<br>
<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 18 May 2010 01:22, aditya siram <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:aditya.siram@gmail.com">aditya.siram@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Haskell is considered by many as an inflexible language [1] . I<br>
describe a flexible language as one that supports any design you want<br>
(even a bad one) - if you can think it, you can code it and run it<br>
(bugs and all).<br>
<br>
I share this opinion about Haskell but pursue it because I feel that<br>
one day it will open up and let me think more about the problem and<br>
less about how to get GHC to approve it.<br>
<br>
So I guess the question to you practitioners is: Would you agree that<br>
it is a rigid language as describe in the link below, or is that just<br>
an illusion that goes away with experience?<br>
<br>
-deech<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="http://therighttool.hammerprinciple.com/statements/this-language-has-a-very-rigid-idea-of-how-things-" target="_blank">http://therighttool.hammerprinciple.com/statements/this-language-has-a-very-rigid-idea-of-how-things-</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Beginners mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Beginners@haskell.org">Beginners@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>