@dpwiz well I know that scheme is highly decomposable from experience. haskell, my experience is quite limited, but it doesn't seem like repurposing haskell code in unanticipated ways is particularly simple from my limited experience.
Top-level
@dpwiz well I know that scheme is highly decomposable from experience. haskell, my experience is quite limited, but it doesn't seem like repurposing haskell code in unanticipated ways is particularly simple from my limited experience. 3 comments
@rml This looks like nominal vs structural “styles”. Haskell clearly favors the former, but has a lot to work with the latter - Dynamic, Generics, all kinds of “Value” ASTs and coercing/parsing/building to bridge it. I’m pessimistic, honestly, on the merits of generic structures throughout and usually want to parse them away and the boundary. Thus, it’s Haskell for me (: |
@rml hm… Perhaps I don’t get what do you mean here. What’s the difference between a composable and decomposable code?