Zed, while I don't disagree regarding the clean and consistent syntax of Haskell, do you realize that some people would argue that camels are horses designed by committee too? :)
While designing by committee guarantees agreement across a large number of people, it does not always ensure efficiency, as committees may lead to poor compromises, sometimes. However, Haskell may be an example of a good case of design-by-committee computer language. Flavio Flavio Villanustre On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Zed Becker <zed.bec...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > > Haskell, is arguably the best example of a design-by-committee language. > The syntax is clean and most importantly, consistent. The essence of a > purely functional programming is maintained, without disturbing its real > world capacity. > > > To all the people who revise the Haskell standard, and implement the > language, > > > 1. > > Promise to me, and the rest of the community, that you will keep > up the good effort :) > 2. > > Promise to me, and the rest of the community, that Haskell will > always spiritually remain the same clean, consistent programming > language > as it is now! > > > Regards, > > Zed Becker > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe