> Haskell has some nice things going for it. Its syntax is cleaner than OCaml's, for example.
While I find the ocaml syntax very far from perfect, the whitespace sensitivity of Haskell makes it immediately worse. What a silly design.
While I find the ocaml syntax very far from perfect, the whitespace sensitivity of Haskell makes it immediately worse. What a silly design.
Haskell does have type classes, which do allow overloading, even of operators, but the type class uniquely determines the type of the operator - and there can be only one definition of any operator in scope.
Also, you can just define as many new operators as you like.
For these reasons, you can't have the madness of operator<< in C++, or whatever it is that Perl does with the same operator doing 5 completely different things depending on context.
Nobody said it did. People said that it has its own brand of problems with operators looking something like >>+@*<>> peppering your code.
this is exactly the problem
Do you mean user-defined operators, or do you mean operators whose type has a typeclass context?
It's interesting because (presumably) reasonable people really disagree on these issues.
And it can be pretty bad with haskell, which has complex semantics compared to, say, python.
With whitespace sensitive syntax, I feel like in the dark age of manual indentation.