Stephen Tetley wrote:
2009/11/3 Andrew Coppin <andrewcop...@btinternet.com>:
As far as I can tell, Clean is to Haskell as C is to Pascal. I.e., Clean is
notionally very similar to Haskell, but with lots of added clutter,
complexity and general ugliness - but it's probably somehow more
machine-efficient as a result.
(All of which makes the name "Clean" rather ironic, IMHO.)
Ouch - you really could put it the other way round.
Part of this really comes down to how one feels about the monads vs
uniqueness types argument. It's a silly argument to have since the ideas
are orthogonal and only really intersect at IO, but there's history
there which lead to the current state of things.
Sometimes in Haskell I've thought about how uniqueness typing would make
something faster, but in general all the plumbing associated with it in
Clean makes me feel like I'm writing systems-level code (i.e. C, asm)
instead of using a high-level language. The extra plumbing really makes
it feel dirtier to work with. That doesn't mean Clean is bad, but I
think it does contribute to the "cluttered" feeling Haskellers get.
But as I said, it's a silly argument and folks should use whichever
gives them warm fuzzies. I also have a vague unnameable distaste
whenever working with Python, and rather enjoy working with Perl.
Nobody's perfect :)
--
Live well,
~wren
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
