Bartosz Milewski seems to like D more than C++ now :)

[Max Samukha]

On Tuesday, 24 September 2013 at 13:46:16 UTC, renoX wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 September 2013 at 13:04:10 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 24 September 2013 at 11:32:18 UTC, renoX wrote:
>>> I'm not sure you understood my point: a 'normal' function 
>>> takes inputS and produce an output, in the notation: a,b->c 
>>> you can clearly see the inputS and the output with a minimum 
>>> of 'syntax noise' around them.
>>> In the notation a -> b -> c, the 'syntax noise' is bigger 
>>> (those arrows between the input parameters are much more 
>>> 'heavy on the eye' than a quote), and what does it bring?
>>> Nothing..
>>>
>>> It's the notation which makes the function type less readable 
>>> which I consider a mistake.
>>>
>>
>> You are putting artificial barrier here.
>>
>> a -> b -> c is a function that take a as parameter and return 
>> a function that take b as parameter and return c. The concept 
>> of multiple parameters and stuff like that exists only in your 
>> mind. You try to map a concept you have in your mind in the 
>> language when it DO NOT exist in the language.
>
> A language is not something set in stone! If the design of a 
> language requires unecessary visual noise, I dislike it, this 
> is not as bad as Lisp, but it is still suboptimal.

I think that -> is neither unnecessary nor noise. After having 
played with Haskell for a while, I actually find the syntax of D 
unnecessarily redundant.

>
> This is not the only 'visual noise' in Haskell: for example 
> Idris replaced '::' by ':', a good change IMHO.

That is probably because ':' is the list append operator already.

>
> renoX