I'm still sort of a beginner with Haskell, but ere are my thoughts. In the sense you mean it, yes Haskell could be considered inflexible because it makes it easier to implement a functional design and harder to implement an imperative design. But if I were to go back to Java now, I would find it very inflexible because it makes it very difficult to functional design, and very easy to do imperative design. I would miss features like functors, monads, and lazy evaluation.



On 18 May 2010 01:22, aditya siram <aditya.siram@gmail.com> wrote:
Haskell is considered by many as an inflexible language [1] . I
describe a flexible language as one that supports any design you want
(even a bad one) - if you can think it, you can code it and run it
(bugs and all).

I share this opinion about Haskell but pursue it because I feel that
one day it will open up and let me think more about the problem and
less about how to get GHC to approve it.

So I guess the question to you practitioners is: Would you agree that
it is a rigid language as describe in the link below, or is that just
an illusion that goes away with experience?

-deech

[1] http://therighttool.hammerprinciple.com/statements/this-language-has-a-very-rigid-idea-of-how-things-
_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
Beginners@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners