In haskell, the syntax is so nice that is easily readable, and it doesn't get in your way.
Unless you want if-then-else in the do notation (yes, I know that there is a GHC extension for this), disagree with its whitespace rules, or like record syntax (which subsequently pollutes your namespace).
Also, point-free style is nice, but it is easily and often abused, leading to unreadable code.
Yeah, but the syntax and the verbosity hides your aim.
Many people would argue the same of Haskell. So much semantics are encoded in the particular operators, monads, functors, monad transformers, arrows being used, that they are hidden from plain sight.
> Also, point-free style is nice, but it is easily and often abused, leading to unreadable code.
That's why it's called point-less style. It's too seductive.
> Many people would argue the same of Haskell. So much semantics are encoded in the particular operators, monads, functors, monad transformers, arrows being used, that they are hidden from plain sight.
In a sense. But at least Haskell is parseable. And overloading is only done in a very systematic manner. So if something fishy's going on, you at least see strange symbols you haven't seen before.
Unless you want if-then-else in the do notation (yes, I know that there is a GHC extension for this), disagree with its whitespace rules, or like record syntax (which subsequently pollutes your namespace).
Also, point-free style is nice, but it is easily and often abused, leading to unreadable code.
Yeah, but the syntax and the verbosity hides your aim.
Many people would argue the same of Haskell. So much semantics are encoded in the particular operators, monads, functors, monad transformers, arrows being used, that they are hidden from plain sight.