"Rafael 'Dido' Sevilla" <dido / imperium.ph> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 03:21:24PM +0900, Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
> > > 
> > > Haskell is pure functional.  ML, Scheme and LISP functions can have side
> > > effects.
> > Haskell does have side effects too. 
> 
> They're called monads, and they're somewhat more confusing to use than
> actual references such as what we have in Scheme and OCaml, in my
> experience.  Unless there are real references in Haskell (which I
> haven't heard about if they do exist). That sounds like ugly business:
> in a lazy language not all side effects may wind up getting evaluated
> and things just get confusing.
I would think one can live with it. But anyway we are a bit too
off-topic here and I better stop commenting on "merits" of other
languages..


> 
> > Very interesting candidated to learn are IMHO. 
> > - Haskell haskell.org
> > - Ocaml http://pauillac.inria.fr/ocaml/ which is quite interesting
> > because it combines  functional language with an OO system.
> 
> http://caml.inria.fr/

> 
> > - Common Lisp because of it's flexibility. If you like Ruby you
> > usually should like Lisp too.
> 
> Maybe Scheme would be an easier dialect to of Lisp learn.
Well Scheme does not offer an Object System Common Lisp does. If one
likes Ruby I would expect one is used to do OO-programmign. Therfor
Common Lisp is the "better choice". But one will get more than one
OO-System for Scheme. And for diverse libraries too. And probably a
bunch of different loop facilites and and and..

Regards
Friedrich