I would like to...

Learn Haskell. What about xmonad?

>>40
Dear Anon,
You have the conversation skill of an oaf.
Signed,
Different Anon

>>40
It depends on who is using it
with less code
I find writing Lisp code pretty easy, even if I have to type slightly more in some cases. Parens never bother me since I use Paredit, not only that but it makes a lot of things much easier to code, like structured editing.

>>41
Coming from you, that must be a complement, diffy.

>>42
Rewrite some of your programs in dead dog and you'll change your mind about that "slightly" really fast.

>>44
Not really, I've rewrote some of my programs in Haskell before, with rather insignificant results.

>>44
Will try it sometime when I actually know Haskell well.
I know Haskell isn't ML, but I know ML, and I find it faster to write Lisp code than ML code. Another thing to keep in mind is that while some funtions/macros have long names, or the fact that you nest a lot of parens, are actually irrelevant things since:
- long function names can be autocompleted: I type m-v-b<TAB> -> multiple-value-bind
- parens - I type [ and paredit inserts balanced parens () in the code. What if I want to change the structure of the code somehow? For example, I've incorrectly written the else clause before the then clause in an IF:

(if predicate else-clause then-clause)
;;; I just press C-M-t and get
(if predicate then-clause else-clause)

>>45
You're probably doint it wrong, then.

>>46
Well, no surprise there, since ML is sorta clunky when compared to both Lisp and Haskell.

>>47
Or it could be the problem domain, but whatever, keep telling yourself that Haskell is the solution to all the worlds ills.

>>49
I never said it was a panacea, I said whatever you do in Lisp you can do it in fewer lines of Haskell. There's a difference, you know.

>>50
And I still say that's bullshit, even with do Syntax, IO is still a lot easier in Lisp and shorter too. The only real difference between haskell and Lisp (as far as my program lengths are concerned) comes down to the pattern matching syntax stripping off a few lines here and there.

>>51
Then you're definitely doing it wrong.

>>52
lol whatever, The brevity of your code owes more to how good you are at expressing your problem and choosing appropriate abstractions. If it's so hard for you to imagine that I can write short Lisp code, then it's just as likely you can't write good Lisp ,as it is that I am coding Haskell wrong.
I'm leaving it here, this argument is a waste.

>>53
You don't believe me? Show me your code and I will show you how you're doing it wrong.

>>54
I don't feel like continuing this discussion with you any further. Good day.

>>55
Wait, why are you impersonating me? Fucking Anonymous!!

>>55
Pussy.

>>55
It's okay, you probably were doing it right.

>>58
He really wasn't.