> Overthrow the oppressive dictatorship!
> Guido rejecting your awesome syntactic proposals? He's not in charge anymore. Annoy advocates of the category theory!
> With Haskell's syntax but none of its type system, dg is the best way to make fans of static typing shut up already. Be on the verge of progress!
> Syntactic sugar is the most important thing nowadays. And don't let those Java guys tell you otherwise. Add one more language to your résumé!
I learn most of what is hip in language design from articles posted here. Is "Haskell syntax without the types" something in demand by programmers, Pythonista or not? I am just curious if this is full-on sarcasm or I completely misread the trends I frequently see on HN. These points made me laugh, but I have no idea what to think.
I'd say Haskell/ML/functional language-style syntax is polarizing; people who write code in functional languages seem to like it because currying, but it can seem pretty foreign to outsiders.
Personally, I think leaving out the parens around function call arguments makes them harder to read and so does currying, so even though I think Elm is pretty cool, the syntax is a drawback for me.
[1] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Indentation#Layout_in_a...
It allows some incredibly powerful concepts to be expressed unambiguously with little syntax.
However I certainly agree that the lack of obvious markers for what a function call involves is painful. (For instance `$` is nonsensical in a C-like language but very useful in Haskell)
Haskell types are ... hard. Imagine a Ruby or JS programmer trying to use Haskell and getting frustrated when they have to, you know, actually care what they're doing.
Spoken as a user of all three/four languages mentioned.
IME -- and I used Ruby and JS a long time before starting Haskell -- you have to care about types in Ruby and JS, too, and, if anything, its more mental load in the dynamic languages, because you don't have a compiler pointing out your mistakes for you, you just have to reason through things manually when your code doesn't work as expected -- or think things through very carefully on your own so it doesn't break unexpectedly.
Though some of the error messages produced by Haskell compilers -- well, GHC in particular, don't know as much about others -- can be downright cryptic, but usually they'll at least point in you in the right direction.
Love the fake O'Reilly book and "NOT'REALLY®" joke.
Would be awesome if you had that kind of tutorial page, or even just added it to the website.
The tutorial is great, too: http://pyos.github.io/dg/tutorial/
Now we just need a Dogecoin implementation written in Dogelang and the world will be complete.
And doge said,
Let there be parody programming languages
And there were parody programming languages
> Q: F# is better than Haskell.
> In that case, use <| or |> instead.
> Objects and types
> Wait, no. Gotta show you something else first.