On Jun 19, 2007, at 16:23 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
Jens Fisseler wrote:
The equivalent of Haskell's list data type would be the array type of most imperative or object-oriented languages. Both are some sort of basic collection type, good for their own sake, but if you want more specialized collection types, you have to implement them.
Maybe it's just a culture thing then... In your typical OOP language, you spend five minutes thinking "now, what collection type shall I use here?" before going on to actually write the code. In Haskell, you just go "OK, so I'll put a list here..."
Haskell is, in many ways, a descendant of Lisp. This does tend to lead to lists being *the* collection type, in my experience: sure, others get used, but lists are the ones you see in examples and such. -- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] allbery@kf8nh.com system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH