> I don't especially like the idea of making multiple notations for the same thing, to be honest.
I can appreciate that sentiment, but I'm afraid the designers of Haskell had a different approach there.
There often a few different ways to express something. But at least they can often be understood as thin syntactic sugaring of one into the other. It's not like C++ or Perl (or even Ruby with its different types of closures) where you have tons of overlapping ways to express something, and they are all subtly different.
> I find the style in for example Rust the most easy on the eye.
I'm not sure about easy-on-the-eye, but I find Rust mostly quite bearable, too.
> > I don't especially like the idea of making multiple notations for the same thing, to be honest.
>
> I can appreciate that sentiment, but I'm afraid the designers of Haskell had a different approach there.
It's also very difficult to achieve in practice. According to the Zen of Python "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it" but I don't think even Python lives up to that.
I don't especially like the idea of making multiple notations for the same thing, to be honest.
> I hope you don't count C's `for(something, something; something; something) {` as part of that intuitive bunch?
Not my favorite, but at least widely used. I find the style in for example Rust the most easy on the eye.
> Btw, Haskell didn't re-invent the wheel for most of its syntax
Yeah I actually suspected this was the case.