In article <1074695649.400e8de12ebc5 / webmail.toadmail.com>, jason r tibbetts wrote:
> Your mentioning Haskell reminded me that I tried to learn it a couple of years
> ago, signed up on the mailing list, etc., but ultimately lost interest because
> the discussions focused on a /much/ higher level than they do here on the Ruby
> list--arguments over language design, etc., with few mentions of using Haskell
> to do anything productive. It's probably a vast improvement over Lisp, as far as
> functional languages are concerned, but harder to grasp. I'm just as much a fan
> of languages-for-languages'-sake as the next CS person, but I was /so/ pleased
> to find Ruby som time later and see instantly how useful it is. But if anyone
> else on the list is considering Haskell as their language of the year, I'll join
> 'em in trying to figure it out.

I found it much easier than Lisp.  I have a hard time thinking in Lisp
because of the lack of syntax.  (Mind you, I haven't actually done
anything in it - I just looked at it for a day or so as part of a
functional programming course.)

Joe