tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464390995524552962.post4277982068099126602..comments2009-01-19T15:42:18.251-05:00Daniel Pratthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09623273077660656625noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464390995524552962.post-31475095645639805422009-01-19T15:42:00.000-05:002009-01-19T15:42:00.000-05:00Hi Mark,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comment. I agree that Haskell can certainly be concise to a fault. On the other hand, we as C# programmers have taken it for granted that we must say all the things C# expects us to say.<BR/><BR/>It's interesting to consider the perspective of someone who does not know of either C# or Haskell. Which version of "square" makes the most sense to that person? I dare say that almost anyone with a basic understanding of math can understand the Haskell version. Not so for the C# version. There's too much there that doesn't have anything to do with the actual intent of the function.Daniel Pratthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09623273077660656625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464390995524552962.post-62988144239459512942009-01-19T02:11:00.000-05:002009-01-19T02:11:00.000-05:00I agree that Haskell can be more concise than C#. But is that a good thing, or a bad?<BR/><BR/>Are developers in the business of achieving most with minimal typing, or is a language allowed to be a little verbose, just to be more clear?<BR/><BR/>In you example I'd have no problems typing the extra characters needed to create the Square function in C#. Why? The typing requires little to none effort in terms of thinking about the code. Ofcourse this is partly to because I'm less skilled in reading/writing Haskell, but I would venture to say that Haskell is a harder to read language than C#. There is less information, so understanding what the code is doing requires more effort, or a more skilled programmer. Right?<BR/><BR/>Also, and I've said this <A HREF="http://blogs.tedneward.com/2006/03/03/Scala+Reactions.aspx" REL="nofollow">before</A>,the usefulness of a programming language is greatly defined by the quality of the development environment that is available for the tool. Syntax is only the second useful quality to look for. <BR/><BR/>- MarkMark Blomsmahttp://www.develop-one.net/blognoreply@blogger.com