Finally some actual proof that haskell is a scam

By not being a newfag.

...

F# > Haskell

Oh where'd you learn that? Chanology 101? Go actually contribute something you degenerate. You can't honestly say you have because all you can do is shitpost on hate thread about Haskell, which quite honestly, you've probably never used in your life.

Go is for literal retards by design

Whatever that has to do with anything. Okay?

module Main wheremain :: IO ()main = putStrLn "so triggered XD"

Sorry, I just prefer actual conversations with people.

Not a splooge of shitposting and arguments.

github.com/Cipherwraith/alacrity

Thank you for actually giving me a link.

Is that the same caching layer that's been causing all the multi posts if you forget to sacrifice a goat?

AHAHA

You are the definition of butthurt

how is haskell better than lisp?

It's easier to read. First line of a function defines what goes in and out, so it's easy to tell what code does at a glance. Lisp is easier to parse though.
I don't know enough Haskell to be able to compare them properly though. CToF :: Int -> IntCToF x = (x * 4.5) + 32

haskell is shit

ignore the shills

They're different languages with different strengths and properties. I'm going to name differences. They can be either advantages or disadvantages. I've only used a little of both Haskell and Lisp, so I might make mistakes.

Lisp has an extremely simple syntax with very little syntactic sugar. Code is lists of lists with a simple structure. That makes it extremely flexible, because the lists that are used to represent code are also a common data structure to use inside a program. All the operations you can apply to a list can be applied to a list that represents code, and the result can be evaluated, which allows very powerful metaprogramming. Haskell, on the other hand, has a lot of syntactic sugar, and that's nice too. It means you can use notation like [1..20] for a list of the numbers from 1 to 20. Notation like that is convenient, but wouldn't fit in Lisp, where you'd use something like (range 1 20) after defining a "range" function. Lisp arguably gets uglier and less readable that way.

Haskell does lazy evaluation. It avoids calculating things until it needs to show the result. This lets you do really weird things, like creating infinite lists. You can make a function that composes a list of all Fibonacci numbers, pass that list around, and then grab the 100th element of it. The list is infinitely long, but because you never request to see all of its content, it doesn't have to spend an infinite time calculating it.

Haskell is strictly functional. All a function does is translate its arguments to a return value. This gives you a lot of guarantees. Most importantly, a function will always have the same return value if you give it the same arguments. You can stop it from being truly functional with monads, but they're too weird to explain here.

I've been looking forward to looking at both python and lisp once the uni semester is over just because they seem interesting along with finally learning maths to a highschool standard. I have data structure and algorithm subjects coming up that are going to wreck me.

If Haskell only deals with functions, how does it deal with I/O?

Weird monad shit that's not quite functional.

Look in a mirror and you'll see that you are wrong.

They are just different, with different approaches to programming; i think both are _very_ good, but you should use them for some time to have an opinion about them.

Monads are 100% functional dude. And IO isn't the only monad, quite the contrary, monads are literally everywhere in haskell.

I didn't say that IO is the only monad.

There's also this:
archive.is/99p0J

why does it bother you so much that other programmers use Haskell?

lel. remember who you are: an autistic neckbeard posting at Holla Forums

a haskell thread mostly devoid of mathematicians. i'm disappointed, but not surprised.

Alacrity is about 1000 lines of code. Not saying it's not a useful tool, but something that simple isn't good evidence. Of course it uses other libraries, but none of the libraries look like they lack equivalents in other mainstream languages.

Is Haskell a SCAM!? I don't think so, but it goes to show that it is not as popular in the industry as some would like you to believe. That doesn't mean Haskell is a bad language.

...

on a Holla Forums board mostly devoid of technicians

So that's why this site is such shit?

DUDE