Functional programming beyond Haskell

We have all learned functional programming in Haskell, but there are more functional languages like Lisp, Scheme, ML, and Clean.

Why should we even bother to look further than Haskell?

- You want your programs to run faster.
- Monads drive you mad (what are they anyway? warm fuzzy things?).
- You need objects.
- You sometimes need a more powerful module system.

http://www.cs.uu.nl/wiki/pub/Stc/BeyondFunctionalProgrammingInHaskell:AnIntroductionToOCaml/ocaml.pdf

>>97

It's hardly curious.

It's curious to the uninitiated and rare, so generally curious. Do you think I was trying to say it was somehow bad or wrong?

Let's take length.

I don't know what point >>94 was really trying to make here. Your bleating is really strange in the face of ( > ) which is typed 'a -> 'a -> bool. But do let us take length:

# let len x = x#length;;
val len : < length : 'a; .. > -> 'a = <fun>

Hurrah structural subtyping. (It works with nominal subtyping systems too, but you don't want that with global inference.)

We can have it both ways in OCaml but one way is clearly preferred. There is no controversy. What's there to argue about?

>>98
Thanks for explaining my post to me but check 'em.