Readable Functional Languages

Andrew Cooke andrew at andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk
Tue Feb 8 09:37:36 CET 2000


In article <87fq9n$1sn$1 at vvs.superst.iae.nl>,
  Carel Fellinger <cfelling at iae.nl> wrote:
> Tim Peters <tim_one at email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > So long as you're just out exploring and don't mind making any
actual
> > progress for a while <wink>, point your browser to
>
> That's fine with me, so Haskell it be:)

Didn't see the rest of this thread (found a pointer to this post as
elj), but thought I'd add a few comments:

- While Haskell is the "standard" functional language, you might
consider ML, which has an interesting type system (OCaml is a variant
that mixes OOP with functional languages).

- If you're looking for a language in which you can do both functional
and procedural programming, have a look at Common Lisp.  It's a
fascinating language - I have learnt a huge amount from it (not just
about FL and OO, but also dynamic code generation).  From the subject
line ("Readable") you might object to the parentheses, but once you
understand the language you'll understand why it's like that, and the
advantages it gives you.

Cheers,
Andrew

PS I wrote a survey of languages that you can get to by following a link
from http://www.andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk/index.html - it has links
to further info on both Lisp, ML and OCaml.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.



More information about the Python-list mailing list