Pretty much any CISC ISA is kinda ugly when compared to most RISC ones.
MIPS, RISC-V (and even ARM to some extent) are way better to read and write, even if that means more lines of code in the end.
I'd put 6502 or 68000 up against any RISC assembly, any day. 68000 was especially enjoyable. 6502 was small enough to hold in your head. Both were great fun. And, alas, both have utterly gone by the wayside.
You put OCaml in "nice syntax" and Haskell in "don't like". I've learned programming mostly with OCaml so I love it but I've been considering also learning Haskell, since I believe it is more popular. Would you say your view why you don't like Haskell? :)
Well I like the globally unambiguous (except for variants with parameters arguably) and above all unforgiving syntax of ocaml so I will surely agree :)
I am an amateur and seeking what to learn. It seems that Haskell is the holy grail of functional programming. I think OCaml only has success because it caught on in certain European Universities (especially in France).
In terms of popularity though, it seems that its reputation fro being too difficult has held it back. However, there are enough people that tell you that Scala sucks as a functional programming language. I tried starting it, and it's just ugly and tedious.
Since you are seeking what to learn, and you are enjoying Haskell, I would say stick with Haskell.
Programming languages are tools. If Haskell can handle the kinds of problems that you are working on, then that's a good tool for the job.
If you discover a programming challenge that Haskell is not the right tool for the job, then that would be a good time to consider alternative languages.
Regardless, Haskell will teach you a lot of good programming habits. And those good habits will be applicable to any other programming language you learn in the future.
I think plain OCaml and Haskell are probably about tied for popularity.
If you include F# as a kind of OCaml (since it is pretty much OCaml for .NET, as a first-class supported citizen by Microsoft), then OCaml wins the popularity contest in a landslide.
If you are deciding between Haskell versus Scala or Clojure ... well, I think either Scala or Clojure have Haskell beat.
Haskell is a pure FP.
Clojure is Lisp with FP added. (Normally targeting JVM, but can target .NET or transpile to JavaScript. Probably a bother to target .NET or JS.)
Scala is OO, with FP; targeting JVM. (In contrast to F# which is FP, with OO added in order to support .NET requirements.)
I find it fascinating that you think that Haskell uglier than OCaml! As a new hobby/amateur programmer, I find that your description of the two languages is the exact opposite. I know nothing of OCaml but just looking at comparisons of code and it seems that both languages are similar but Haskell is cleaner and has some nicer syntax options, especially when it comes to function composition.
Wish I got to write in 6502 assembly... My OS professor made us write the machine code direct... and those 16 bit words were virtual, but the chip was designed so that the least significant byte was first... so you have to invert your variables HEX notation...
I like this game.
Ugly syntax:
Verbose, unwieldly, and/or awkward syntax... but not what I'd quite call truly ugly:
I just don't like it syntax:
Nice syntax:
Syntax that I'm not sufficiently familiar with to find the flaws, but I bet I'd find it nice, or at least not ugly:
Intel's assembly syntax is really gorgeous when compared to AT&T's syntax
It's not the Intel vs AT&T syntax that is the problem, it's the 80x86, Itanium and AMD64 syntax that is the problem.
I'd add that RISC syntax of DEC Alpha and PowerPC assembly is likewise ugly, but for different reasons than Intel's syntax.
Ops, my bad there.
Pretty much any CISC ISA is kinda ugly when compared to most RISC ones.
MIPS, RISC-V (and even ARM to some extent) are way better to read and write, even if that means more lines of code in the end.
I'd put 6502 or 68000 up against any RISC assembly, any day. 68000 was especially enjoyable. 6502 was small enough to hold in your head. Both were great fun. And, alas, both have utterly gone by the wayside.
You put OCaml in "nice syntax" and Haskell in "don't like". I've learned programming mostly with OCaml so I love it but I've been considering also learning Haskell, since I believe it is more popular. Would you say your view why you don't like Haskell? :)
I find OCaml's syntax to be very, very clean, and Haskell's syntax to be unnecessary awkward and clumsy. YMMV.
Well I like the globally unambiguous (except for variants with parameters arguably) and above all unforgiving syntax of ocaml so I will surely agree :)
I am an amateur and seeking what to learn. It seems that Haskell is the holy grail of functional programming. I think OCaml only has success because it caught on in certain European Universities (especially in France).
In terms of popularity though, it seems that its reputation fro being too difficult has held it back. However, there are enough people that tell you that Scala sucks as a functional programming language. I tried starting it, and it's just ugly and tedious.
Anyway, as you are an OCaml expert maybe something like this will help you
science.raphael.poss.name/haskell-...
Thank you for you interest.
Since you are seeking what to learn, and you are enjoying Haskell, I would say stick with Haskell.
Programming languages are tools. If Haskell can handle the kinds of problems that you are working on, then that's a good tool for the job.
If you discover a programming challenge that Haskell is not the right tool for the job, then that would be a good time to consider alternative languages.
Regardless, Haskell will teach you a lot of good programming habits. And those good habits will be applicable to any other programming language you learn in the future.
I think plain OCaml and Haskell are probably about tied for popularity.
If you include F# as a kind of OCaml (since it is pretty much OCaml for .NET, as a first-class supported citizen by Microsoft), then OCaml wins the popularity contest in a landslide.
If you are deciding between Haskell versus Scala or Clojure ... well, I think either Scala or Clojure have Haskell beat.
Haskell is a pure FP.
Clojure is Lisp with FP added. (Normally targeting JVM, but can target .NET or transpile to JavaScript. Probably a bother to target .NET or JS.)
Scala is OO, with FP; targeting JVM. (In contrast to F# which is FP, with OO added in order to support .NET requirements.)
I find it fascinating that you think that Haskell uglier than OCaml! As a new hobby/amateur programmer, I find that your description of the two languages is the exact opposite. I know nothing of OCaml but just looking at comparisons of code and it seems that both languages are similar but Haskell is cleaner and has some nicer syntax options, especially when it comes to function composition.
I think you’d put Ada under the verbose category. Definitely a lot of typing
Wish I got to write in 6502 assembly... My OS professor made us write the machine code direct... and those 16 bit words were virtual, but the chip was designed so that the least significant byte was first... so you have to invert your variables HEX notation...
I still have nightmares.
I loved 6500 family assembler. So simple, direct.
Bad syntax: Erlang
Nice syntax: Coffeescript
... Really?
What do you find particularly bad about Erlang's syntax?
I love Erlang already dude, that guy just says CoffeeScript is better than Erlang's syntax. That's dumb
Oh... I didn't say Erlang had bad syntax. I said Erlang has ugly syntax.
I thought you were saying Erlang had bad syntax.
If I were targeting the Erlang VM, I'd probably use Elixir.