Which is best/recommend functional lang?

Coq > Agda > Clean > Haskell > Ocaml > ATS > Epigram?

What is your opinion?

Mines:
Coq has all trades, and a fair repository to start real programs with.
Agda is what Haskell needs, and Clean just does it, but both do not have a repository.
Ocaml just has a great repository. And ATS has imperative syntax included.

If you have other recommendations, please do tell. I guess I am asking which is the most versatile language of these all. Leaning towards Haskell, and when Coq is ready. Unless Common Lisp is the answer to all.

scheme >

>>2
Ok, would you be kind as to expand why so?

>>3
Turing complete, easy to write bug free code, simple yet powerful but slow(Without dedicated hardware) and impractical as fuck due to being academia bullshit.

In short, the epitome of functional languages.

>>4

Turing complete is not that important, I would settle for primitive recursive for certain features. Can you mention an important problem, I can only solve with a language which is turing complete?

Scheme has a great deal of research and existing code, is a very simple language, and has great environments+implementations+libraries such as Guile and Racket.

Downsides, depending on what you're implementing, could be the dynamic type system(which is generally really good) and perhaps performance(although there are some incredibly efficient AOT implementations).

>>1
Haskell is the best, and I believe it has a repository.
cabal?

A repository of bones?

Scheme is a toy language.
Use Haskell.

>>9
this

suck(this).evenInchPenis;

Haskell combines the flexibility of Laziness with the correctness of type strictness, it is probably the best way to go.  And Monads are an awesome you can create pure computations from an impure program.

Type classes, type constructors, point-free curried functions, laziness, IO, algebraic data types.  Haskell is cutting-edge, and faster than the JVM!

>>12
You forgot to mention that it does a fairly decent job at weeding out both the mental midgets and novice C++ programmers.

>>12
It's not faster than the JVM.
http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32q/haskell.php

>>13
That too!

It might well discourage people from programming, which is probably a good thing.

>>4
I see. Haskell would indeed spew out errors if you missed something in the code. But I am hoping for that strictness, so that I program correctly. And you are correct, most Scheme implementations are not correct (as in correctness in specification, not working as intended). That's kinda true although for most programs, since we have ingrained the W=B philosophy.

I agree with >>5. Most languages are turing complete, and the only time I can see that being useful is for a worm or virus (even beneficial ones, like daemon balancers and application "fixers").

>>6
Indeed, so does Haskell, Coq, and Ocaml. Heck even Scala *shrugs*

AOT implementations
What does that mean? Assisted Outpatient Treatment, Always on Top, Among other things?

>>7,9,10,12
Thanks I was thinking that indeed. I guess I know which one to stick with. Even though Coq can output Haskell, Scheme and OCaml with correct-by-construction, and Agda to Haskell only.
This preview is so awesome:
http://www.cs.ru.nl/~freek/talks/lv-2004/07.pdf

>>13
LOL, indeed.

>>14
If you look at the sample code for exercise, you could say they "have" the same speed. But the Java code is not optimized, or error prone, therefore you are sacrificing observed speed over safety. You can tell specifically tell such by how much memory JVM consumed. One simple code injection or external manipulation of the program, even a hiccup from JVM, you have a catastrophe on your running.

HOT STRIPPING COQS

Why not try PHP, it is also a functional language, because of closures. It is anonymous function based on share nothing scoping. It is very cool.

First it was the completely unironical Javashit kike. Now it's the unironical PHP kike.

Oy vey!

>>20

What is wrong with PHP you dipshit? It is a much better language than haskell for sure, because there are millions of websites made in PHP and 5 in haskell. It is the superior weblanguage. People here don't understand how to program if they say PHP sucks, because it is one of the best language I ever found.


Why don't haskell haven't got Opcode caches? Because they suck, they can't create such a complex piece of technology.

complex piece of technology
Doesn't understand it, says it sucks.

It is a much better language than haskell for sure, because there are millions of websites made in PHP and 5 in haskell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Do you understand that?

See? >>21 is exactly like the old Javashit kike. Making arguments about the quality of the programming language based on the popularity, saying it's the soul of the web, calling us ignorant and stuff like that.

tl;dr the javashit kike now went for PHP

C obviously. If you can't do it in C then I don't know what the fuck it is you are doing here bitch

>>24
Those of us who are competent with Haskell say the thing about C programmers.

>>25
Except the world runs on C (and COBOL), whereas Haskell is limited to a niche academic market.

Coq: proofs suck, now your prover does too!

My prover sucks coqs!

>>25
Funnily enough, GHC is implemented in C.  So why do you even bother writing all that boilerplate on top of C when you could just write your programs directly?

>>29
Funnily enough, C is implemented in ASM.  So why do you even bother writing all that boilerplate on top of ASM when you could just write your programs directly?

>>30
That's the thing though.  It's not.

>>30
The back end of the compiler transforms Core code into an internal representation of C--, via an intermediate language STG (short for "Spineless Tagless G-machine").[7] The C-- code can then take one of three routes: it is either printed as C code for compilation with GCC, converted directly into native machine code (the traditional "code generation" phase), or converted to LLVM virtual machine code for compilation with LLVM. In all three cases, the resultant native code is finally linked against the GHC runtime system to produce an executable.

Are you really that stupid to assume that all languages boil down to C?

>>32 directed at >>29

>>32
Assuming you don't actually know how to quote and are referring to >>31, please reread >>30, which you mistakenly quoted.  You will find that they key word is `implemented'.

>>33
Please run a code analysis of the GHC and inform us what languages make up the project.  You might be surprised!

>>35
You might be surprised!
I was very surprised to find that its implemented mostly in the Algorithmic Language Scheme!

>>22
>>23
It seems you have fallen for the classic internet deception known to some as "troling". It's okay, there's no need to be ashamed! Just remember, sometimes people on the internet say things just to get a reaction.

reported

>>34
By implemented, do you mean, "put into effect?"  Because if so, you would be surprised to find that GHC compiles to C-- then to ASM.

If not, you are retarded.

You are retarded either way.

http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/177/2/Gallery-Tour/Page2.html

On the surface Clean Language is a set of questions developed by therapist David Grove in the 1980s and 1990s; and it has many hidden depths.

Clean Language is ‘clean’ because it keeps the facilitator from unwittingly introducing their metaphors, assumptions or suggestions into a conversation (no matter how well meaning these may be). Clean questions encourage metaphors, ideas, self-reflections and ah-ha’s to crystallise in awareness. When personal change is the goal, Clean Language invites a client's perceptions to evolve and change organically — one question at a time.

Let me be clear, ‘clean’ does not mean ‘no influence’.  All language influences and Clean Language wouldn’t be much use if it didn’t have an effect. Because of its ability to respectfully invite clients to attend to particular aspects of their inner world, Clean Language influences the direction of a client’s mind-body-spirit process – without contaminating the content of their experience. Other processes may do this too, but none do it so cleanly or in quite the way that Clean Language does, and none are so tailored to work with metaphor.

>>40
Клиномес, ты опять выходишь на связь, мудило?
Cleanomes, you've started yer yappin' again, asswipe?

>>1-41
If it ain't Lisp, it's crap.

>>42
Indeed.

>>43
Lisp is shit.

check 'em

>>44
checked. Yes, these are dubs.

>>1-45
If it ain't shit, it's crap.