On 19/12/2011 07:20 PM, Robert Clausecker wrote:
Image you would create your own language with a paradigm similar to Haskell or have to chance to change Haskell without the need to keep any compatibility. What stuff would you add to your language, what stuff would you remove and what problems would you solve completely different?
1. Remove special treatment for lists. That is, remove the standard list type from the Prelude and make it into just another container library. The type is trivially definable; it doesn't need to be hard-wired into the language. I would name it "List" rather than "[]" too, and give its constructors sensible names rather than ":" and "[]". I would also make the current literal list syntax overloaded, so it can be used to construct any type of container. (Much the way numeric literals are overloaded.) 2. Add special treatment for arrays. That is, have strict, unboxed arrays hard-wired into the language. For every user type, not just ones which are members of a special type. Fully parametric. You know, like how they are in almost every other programming language known to Man, except Haskell. Also, the base array library would have zero-based integer indicies, and if you want arbitrary index values, that would be a library on top. Also, primitives for fast copying of array chunks. 3. Fix the Typeclassopedia. By which I mean things like removing "fail" from Monad, making Applicative a superclass of Monad, etc. You know, the usual stuff everybody complains about for being horribly broken. 4. Do something sane with the numerical classes. Unfortunately, this one is a Hard Problem. I doubt you can "solve" this without rampant language changes. But it should be possible to /improve/ on what exists currently. 5. Miscelaneous consistency changes. Haskell has a number of minor glitches which are irritating though not catastrophic. Things like type signatures being allowed in expressions but not patterns. Value constructors can be operators, but type constructors cannot. Negation is the only unary operator. And so forth. Nothing radical here. 6. Experimental stuff. I have a number of other, more radical ideas, but I probably wouldn't put those in, because the resulting language would be so drastically different that it wouldn't be "Haskell" any more. (That said, most of the stuff above would pretty much be hard breaking changes...)