[<<][meta][>>][..]

Typed functional programming (Haskell vs. Scheme)

A matter of taste probably, but static type joy does come at a price.

A lot of patterns I take for granted in Scheme (i.e. through macros)
are not straightforward to express due to constraints of the type
system.

Once example is pattern matching: often I would like to parameterize
type constructors.  Probably I'm just not there yet.

It's too early to say, but atm I tend towards Scheme.  However,
Haskell _is_ incredibly consise when you do find a way to stick to the
bondage.



[Reply][About]
[<<][meta][>>][..]