7 ms·
I've wanted many things from shell but never to write Haskell in Shell. This turned something relatively naturally expressible into something so complex that re
by pvsnp 2y ago
I've wanted many things from shell but never to write Haskell in Shell. This turned something relatively naturally expressible into something so complex that requires type theory
- sinkasapa 2y agoThere is no reason why one has to enjoy a haskell-like syntax over Bourne shell syntax but I think you're wrong about the tool. The author states that "It should have no abstraction capabilities (classes, data types, polymorphic functions, etc.)." Granted, there may be types but without those abstractions, I don't think you need to know much of anything about type theory.
- eru 2y agoYou could use the Scheme Shell instead, if you don't like static typing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsh And specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsh#%22Acknowledgments%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsh#%22Acknowledgments%22