Conversation

Rust learned a lot from Haskell, and now offers programmers something new that is nonetheless informed by other languages. So now I’m wondering, what can Haskell learn from Rust?
9
81
Records & namespaces. Industrial Haskell codebases will forever be dogged by it no matter what libs you pull in.
1
20
Is it possible to fix? I would totally buy in to a Haskell2020 that offered `value.method` syntax with the required restriction on the composition operator. But I don’t have the sense the broader community would.
2
4
Namespaces are hard, maybe making Backpack easier to use would help. As for records the 'record' keyword isn't taken. I say keep current records as is and start over with a new construct.
1
9
I'm not sure a module system that exists outside of the language itself will ever been nearly as usable as something integrated into the language (even if it's still not first-class).
1
2
That's what I'm saying. I want the Pascal style multiple 'unit's per file I was promised in the white paper. Gib.
1
2
This doesn’t really seem like what I think is being asked for – this is more a way of letting you disambiguate overloaded names? I think Deech might want the ability to define nested modules, like in Agda (even if they are not parameterised, or lack signatures).
1
1
Eg. In Rust you can define submodules without having to make a new file. It’s pretty handy! I’m pretty sure I saw a semi-recent proposal to add this to GHC… perhaps by Richard Eisenberg?
1
1