Talk:Clean (programming language)

Computing C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Might want to include how it's one of the most efficient languages in calculating the Ackermann Function. [1] 70.111.251.203 14:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see this Fibonacci example often when people try to show off some language's features. But this function is terribly slow! It takes 2^n steps to compute the nth number. It would be enlightening for those who are just starting to look at this language if someone included an actually usable Fibonacci function implementation. (Yes, I know that Fibonacci numbers can be calculated in one step with a single formula, but here I mean an implementation that is usable for any number series in which x_n can be calculated as a function of x_{n-1} and x_{n-2}).

"Delayed evaluation" should probably be replaced by / supplemented by "non-strict evaluation". There should be some more clear separation between language features (e.g., referential transparency) and tools features (e.g., IDE) -- these are entirely separate questions. Developers, etc. should be mentioned. Maybe a comparison with a language like Haskell would be helpful? Is it open-source?

"language Clean is heavily influenced by Haskell"

I first read about Concurrent Clean(shortened to Clean) in Byte magazine in 1994. It was only in the 2000's that I heard of Haskell. The truth of which influenced which language is not straight foward as made out in the article. Clean is the oldest of the two languages (http://sequence.complete.org/node/119). But Clean has always been a work in progress so since its creation its syntax has changed from time to time; and some of that syntax apparently was borrowed from Haskell. It says on the wiki page "This article is missing citations or needs footnotes". That tells you how much you can trust its accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.249.167 (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syntactic differences

What is the use of a list of syntactic differences with Haskell? Syntactic differences aren't very interesting to anyone but those who are starting for the first time. But then they should just use http://www.mbsd.cs.ru.nl/publications/papers/2007/achp2007-CleanHaskellQuickGuide.pdf, and they will get acquainted with the other syntax easily.

It would be more interesting to list significant differences, e.g. arity, uniqueness typing, strictness and dynamics. CamilStaps (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be called "Why Clean is better than Haskell"?

I don't think the content is necessarily bad and a comparison to Haskell is definitely relevant with it being a much more popular, but very similar language. However, a lot of the article reads like someone is trying to convince me that Clean is better than Haskell. --Anka.213 (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]