Hacker News Reader

I've wanted many things from shell but never to write Haskell in Shell. This turned something relatively naturally expressible into something so complex that requires type theory

View on HN

There is no reason why one has to enjoy a haskell-like syntax over Bourne shell syntax but I think you're wrong about the tool. The author states that "It should have no abstraction capabilities (classes, data types, polymorphic functions, etc.)." Granted, there may be types but without those abstractions, I don't think you need to know much of anything about type theory.

You could use the Scheme Shell instead, if you don't like static typing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsh

And specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsh#%22Acknowledgments%22

Reply on news.ycombinator.com