> Thankfully, in GHC 7.4.1 was introduced the record syntax, which allows naming fields, like this […]
What on Earth? Record syntax has been around since the very first versions of Haskell. This is a surprisingly blatant error to see so near the beginning of this article…
I guess they were confused by the GHc documentation which says that the language option TraditionalRecordSyntax was introduced then, and enabled by default. Of course, the actual syntax was always part of the language. There just wasn’t an explicit option to enable/disable it.
Or didn't verify what LLM wrote
Look at what they need to mimic a fraction of our power.
I wish for a language that combines the strengths of Haskell and Typescript. I suppose PureScript isn't that?
I'm looking at https://roc-lang.org Maybe once it matures, it could have the strengths of TypeScript and Haskell.
No language is going to replace mainstream languages if it comes with minimal libraries. PS and similar langs are nice efforts but unfortunately pointless.
So a little bit of syntax is verbose, goes on to invent a whole new syntax for it
Discovering that Template Haskell exists was important to younger me. Its existence means Smart People have concluded that there are notions of abstraction that can't be adequately captured in regular Haskell, which freed me from the persistent feeling that my inability to express something nicely in regular Haskell was due to some inadequacy in myself. I could at last relax, and despise the language.
Also, Haskell? You can take your space leaks and shove them.
> Also, Haskell? You can take your space leaks and shove them.
> Thankfully, in GHC 7.4.1 was introduced the record syntax, which allows naming fields, like this […]
What on Earth? Record syntax has been around since the very first versions of Haskell. This is a surprisingly blatant error to see so near the beginning of this article…
I guess they were confused by the GHc documentation which says that the language option TraditionalRecordSyntax was introduced then, and enabled by default. Of course, the actual syntax was always part of the language. There just wasn’t an explicit option to enable/disable it.
Or didn't verify what LLM wrote
Look at what they need to mimic a fraction of our power.
I wish for a language that combines the strengths of Haskell and Typescript. I suppose PureScript isn't that?
https://www.purescript.org/
I'm looking at https://roc-lang.org Maybe once it matures, it could have the strengths of TypeScript and Haskell.
No language is going to replace mainstream languages if it comes with minimal libraries. PS and similar langs are nice efforts but unfortunately pointless.
So a little bit of syntax is verbose, goes on to invent a whole new syntax for it
Discovering that Template Haskell exists was important to younger me. Its existence means Smart People have concluded that there are notions of abstraction that can't be adequately captured in regular Haskell, which freed me from the persistent feeling that my inability to express something nicely in regular Haskell was due to some inadequacy in myself. I could at last relax, and despise the language.
Also, Haskell? You can take your space leaks and shove them.
> Also, Haskell? You can take your space leaks and shove them.
In case any passers by are interested, space leaks are a solved problem: make invalid laziness unrepresentable (https://h2.jaguarpaw.co.uk/posts/make-invalid-laziness-unrep...)
> Its existence means Smart People have concluded that there are notions of abstraction that can't be adequately captured in regular Haskell,
...yet.