On 14 out, 00:26, Ertugrul Söylemez <e...@ertes.de> wrote:
> BTW, you mentioned symbols ('$', '.' and '>>='), which are not syntactic
> sugar at all. They are just normal functions, for which it makes sense
> to be infix. The fact that you sold them as syntactic sugar or
> "perlisms" proves that you have no idea about the language, so stop
> crying. Also Python-style significant whitespace is strictly optional.
> It's nice though. After all most Haskell programmers prefer it.
it still makes haskell code scattered with perlisms, be it syntax or
function name... in practice, Haskell code is ridden with such
perlisms and significant whitespace, and infix function application
and more special cases. All of these contribute to a harder to parse
language and to less compilers for it.
> > And one as complex and scary beast as gcc... that's the cost of a very
> > irregular syntax...
>
> What also proves that you have no idea is the fact that there is no
> Haskell compiler called 'gcc'. That's the GNU C compiler.
ORLY?
do you understand what a comparison is?
> Glasgow Haskell Compiler, GHC, and it's by far not the only one. It's
> just the one most people use, and there is such a compiler for all
> languages.
yeah, there's also some Yale Haskell compiler in some graveyard, last
time I heard...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
