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.becker@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