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

[renoX]

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.

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

renoX