Comment by pohl | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pohl | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I prefer Erlang.

Just out of curiosity, why is that? (With reference to the linked example, I mean.) Clearly they're in the same league, and so it's a close call. From my perspective, I like that Haskell reserved the single vertical bar for the list comprehension notation, so that it would be as close to familiar set-comprehension notation as possible. I also like how Haskell takes advantage of how the cons operator already implies in the pattern-matching that you're working with a list, and so the square brackets become unnecessary, whereas Erlang needs the noisy extra layer of brackets on top of the parenthesis needed for the pattern.

But once languages get this elegant, it's a close comparison. They're both beautiful to my eyes.

I think the sytnax of Erlang is much more elegant, because it was build around the fundamental idea of pattern matching as a core feature of the language.

When you have a few good ideas put together, you could get an elegant solution. When you just stuff everything inside (like Clojure) or went to extremes (like Haskell) all you got is just a mess.

Erlang syntax, however, is noisy due to all those punctuation, but it is elegant nevertheless.

  map(Fun, [H|T]) -> [Fun(H)|map(Fun, T)];
  map(Fun, []) -> [].
 
  member(H, [H|T]) -> true;
  member(H, [_|T] -> member(H, T);
  member(H, []) -> false.

This is intuitive, readable, but noisy.)

I'm not sure I follow you. Is the pattern-matching in Haskell somehow not 'core' enough? Both qsort examples linked in this thread use pattern matching.

All I'm trying to say that Erlang syntax is much more intuitive and readable, being derived from Prolog.

I honestly can't see why should I use Haskell (except for being so clever) when I have Erlang, or at least one real advantage.

well, let's look.

map f (h:t) = f h:map f t

map f [] = []

member x (h:t) = x == h || member x t

member _ [] = False

I think the only difference is that you can't match for equality directly in the pattern.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com