11 ms·
Not really, no. Like Elm, it strips away practically everything that wasn't already in 1970s-era ML. It's much closer to a trimmed-down Ocaml than it is to Hask
by adjav 3y ago
Not really, no. Like Elm, it strips away practically everything that wasn't already in 1970s-era ML. It's much closer to a trimmed-down Ocaml than it is to Haskell.
- lambda_garden 3y agoSome in the ML community think a simpler language has advantages over a more expressive one, in some cases. For example: https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/243#issuecomment-916079347 https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/243#issu...
- bbkane 3y agoNot just the ML community. Go's simplicity is often derided, but I think the best in class tooling (dev tooling like gopls, golangci-lint, deployment tooling like ServiceWeaver, Goreleasor, etc) and easy understandability more than make up for "what yuu can't do"
- tome 3y agoNot just in the Go community! Everyone believes in "as simple as possible". The disagreement is about "but no simpler".
- tkz1312 3y agoGiven its strict purity and use of typeclasses over modules I would say roc is more like haskell than it is ocaml.