[Haskell-cafe] If you'd design a Haskell-like language, what would you do different?

[scooter.phd at gmail.com]

I'd suggest, in addition to the symbols, renaming some of the fundamental types and concepts, like Monad. I would violently agree that Monad is the correct term, but try to communicate with a commodity software developer sometime (or a government acquisition professional). RWH goes a long way to explaining the concepts, as do the countless Web pages dedicated to explaining the monad concept. 

Better examples for SYB and arrows would also help. 

Haskell is a great language with solid mathematical underpinnings. I'm a big fan of it. But, adoption is the key to success; need to make the ordinary easy to understand unless the community wants to be relegated to Scala status.

-----Original message-----
From: Andrew Cowie <andrew at operationaldynamics.com>
To: haskell-cafe at haskell.org
Sent: Tue, Dec 20, 2011 18:05:18 PST
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] If you'd design a Haskell-like language, what would you do different?

On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 16:53 -0500, Matthew Farkas-Dyck wrote:
> Two of three ain't bad (^_~)

Now we just need λ to replace \, → to replace ->, and ≠ to replace /=
(which still looks like division assignment no matter how hard I squint
my eyes. 25 years of C and C derived languages is hard to forget).

Hey, forget replacing, wouldn't it be wonderful if the compiler would
just accept them as synonyms?

AfC
Sydney



_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20111220/2ea92ae4/attachment.htm>