From: William Djaja Tjokroaminata <billtj@...>
Date: 2002-08-28T03:22:12+09:00
Subject: Re: What New Language After Ruby?

Based on the comparison example, is it true that in general Haskell code
is relatively shorter than Scheme code?  Probably this shorter syntax
gives Haskell an advantage (something that I really appreciate knowing
how faster I can program in Ruby compared to programming in C).

(Well, the first time I switched to Ruby from Python I hated to have to
write the "end" keywords as the code becomes longer than that in
Python; probably syntax-wise regarding the wording Python is better than
Ruby.  Also, Python has the motto "there is only one way to do it" whereas
Ruby still has some influences from Perl.)

Regards,

Bill
==========================================================================
Nat Pryce <nat.pryce@b13media.com> wrote:
> Exactly.  Currying is not supported by the language.  Although it can be
> implemented by hand, it is not as convenient as when provided by the
> language itself.

> E.g. in Scheme, a function to add 2 to a number has to be defined as:

> (define (add2 x) (+ x 2))

> while in Haskell it's

> add2 = + 2

> This example is pretty simple, but the advantages of currying are most
> apparent when using higher order functions.  E.g. compare:

> define (double a-list) (map (lambda (x) (* x 2)) a-list))

> to:

> double a_list = map (* 2) a_list