diff options
| author | Paul Buetow <paul@buetow.org> | 2021-05-31 10:09:19 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Paul Buetow <paul@buetow.org> | 2021-05-31 10:09:19 +0100 |
| commit | d3a70f706d57530e6c3a12364af0fdcf51ec6e20 (patch) | |
| tree | 2eb8d872ee3ae5254850c4cc9e2f3372659f594e /gemfeed/2010-04-09-standard-ml-and-haskell.html | |
| parent | c7d03dc1b79d2214db40e322a31d1844b1c64d87 (diff) | |
Publishing new version
Diffstat (limited to 'gemfeed/2010-04-09-standard-ml-and-haskell.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | gemfeed/2010-04-09-standard-ml-and-haskell.html | 12 |
1 files changed, 6 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/gemfeed/2010-04-09-standard-ml-and-haskell.html b/gemfeed/2010-04-09-standard-ml-and-haskell.html index 256c8faf..4602f248 100644 --- a/gemfeed/2010-04-09-standard-ml-and-haskell.html +++ b/gemfeed/2010-04-09-standard-ml-and-haskell.html @@ -50,10 +50,10 @@ h2, h3 { <body> <h1>Standard ML and Haskell</h1> <p class="quote"><i>Written by Paul Buetow 2010-04-09</i></p> -<p>I am currently looking into the functional programming language Standard ML (aka SML). The purpose is to refresh my functional programming skills and to learn something new too. Since I already know a little Haskell, could I do not help myself and I implemented the same exercises in Haskell too.</p> -<p>As you will see, SML and Haskell are very similar (at least when it comes to the basics). However, the syntax of Haskell is a bit more "advanced". Haskell utilizes fewer keywords (e.g. no val, end, fun, fn ...). Haskell also allows to explicitly write down the function types. What I have been missing in SML so far is the so-called pattern guards. Although this is a very superficial comparison for now, so far I like Haskell more than SML. Nevertheless, I thought it would be fun to demonstrate a few simple functions of both languages to show off the similarities. </p> -<p>Haskell is also a "pure functional" programming language, whereas SML also makes explicit use of imperative concepts. I am by far not a specialist in either of these languages but here are a few functions implemented in both, SML and Haskell:</p> -<h2>Defining a multi data type</h2> +<p>I am currently looking into the functional programming language Standard ML (aka SML). The purpose is to refresh my functional programming skills and to learn something new too. Since I already knew a little Haskell, I could not help myself, and I also implemented the same exercises in Haskell.</p> +<p>As you will see, SML and Haskell are very similar (at least when it comes to the basics). However, the syntax of Haskell is a bit more "advanced". Haskell utilizes fewer keywords (e.g. no val, end, fun, fn ...). Haskell also allows to write down the function types explicitly. What I have been missing in SML so far is the so-called pattern guards. Although this is a very superficial comparison for now, so far, I like Haskell more than SML. Nevertheless, I thought it would be fun to demonstrate a few simple functions of both languages to show off the similarities. </p> +<p>Haskell is also a "pure functional" programming language, whereas SML also makes explicit use of imperative concepts. I am by far not a specialist in either of these languages, but here are a few functions implemented in both SML and Haskell:</p> +<h2>Defining a multi-data type</h2> <p>Standard ML:</p> <pre> datatype ’a multi @@ -171,8 +171,8 @@ delete_one m w = do if x == w then (Empty, True) else (Elem x, False) delete_one’ x = (x, False) </pre> -<h2>Higher order functions</h2> -<p>The first line is always the SML code, the second line always the Haskell variant:</p> +<h2>Higher-order functions</h2> +<p>The first line is always the SML code, the second line the Haskell variant:</p> <pre> fun make_map_fn f1 = fn (x,y) => f1 x :: y make_map_fn f1 = \x y -> f1 x : y |