Granted that LiveScript isn't Haskell, how are the syntactic features that are derived from Haskell not at all like Haskell?
Granted that LiveScript isn't Haskell, how are the syntactic features that are derived from Haskell not at all like Haskell?
The defining characteristics of Haskell (to me, bear in mind I'm a Haskell noob) are strong, static, inferred types, and an emphasis on pure or near-pure functional programming (limiting side effects as much as possible). The defining characteristics are not a standard library function named "fold" or "takeWhile".
LiveScript has JavaScript semantics, like CoffeeScript. These semantics differ from Haskell in deep and fundamental ways. Yes, it might also encourage functional programming, but so does Scheme and Clojure, both of which are really nothing like Haskell either. I don't think this is controversial.
It borrowed some syntax, but from what I can tell, it's much closer semantically to Scheme.
The vast majority of the syntax seems based on CoffeeScript.