[Haskell-cafe] Re: Aim Of Haskell
jo at durchholz.org
Tue Dec 12 18:02:58 EST 2006
Claus Reinke schrieb:
> but on the Pascal note: is there anything in Pascal that Haskell doesn't
> provide, and improves on (nested procedures, procedure parameters,
> distinguishing in and out parameters, types, ..)? it has been too long
> since my Pascal days, I don't remember..
Nothing that I'm aware of. You'd have to be careful which version of
Pascal you mean, there were lots of dialects around.
In general, however, I'm not sure whether contrasting Haskell to Pascal
is a fruitful exercise. Pascal and C are nearer to each other than
Haskell is to either of them after all. (Type classes, anonymous
functions, type inference, just to name the first three that occurred to
> apart from the communication problem of understanding Haskell as Pascal:
> if you're talking to someone who knows Pascal, it might not be
> a bad idea to position Haskell as a drastically modernized version of
> Pascal, to get the discussion of real merits going?
No, not at all.
I think that Haskell is a step ahead of OO. The connection is a bit
tenuous, but if you carry the Liskov Substitution Principle to its
logical consequence, you end up disallowing any semantic changes in
subclasses... and that means you don't need interface subclassing at all.
And to implement those inhomogenous lists and iterators and whatnot, you
show how you can do that in a functional language without the
... it might be useful to show how the design patterns from the
Gang-of-Four book can be done in a functional language. And with less
Such a side-by-side comparison might help convince library writers and
system architects (and these are among the more important people to win
More information about the Haskell-Cafe