7 ms·

Every year since I've started to read about programming (maybe 10 years), Haskell (and pure functional programming in general) has been the Next Big Thing. I do

by tdeck 11y ago

Every year since I've started to read about programming (maybe 10 years), Haskell (and pure functional programming in general) has been the Next Big Thing. I don't have anything in particular against Haskell, but its failure to "arrive" makes me think the answer to your question is no.

tormeh 11y ago
Well, functional programming has a lot of good ideas in it, it's just that people generally want the functional stuff in addition to, or at least only partially replacing, the imperative stuff. Laziness has gone out of style. Object orientation is going nowhere. Functional programming is arriving right now, but not as Haskell. As an aside, I think of Haskell as a sensei/guru saying, "Young grasshopper, if you want access to the glory that is my wisdom you will have to wash my dishes and scrape off my calluses for the next three years" to which my personal reply is "Hell no". It¨s unfriendly and it doesn't respect my time. Is there wisdom in Haskell? Probably, but I don't have the patience to deal with the bullshit.
jfoutz 11y ago
Evolution is slow. Java imho brought garbage collection to the mainstream. lisp had been doing that for 20 years or so. I don't think Haskell itself will ever be the language of choice, it'll probably fall into (remain in?) a smalltalk like life. That said, functional idioms seem to be creeping into lots of mainstream languages, so it's not like never. Rust seems pretty heavily influenced by ml, and somewhat by haskell.
- tdeck 11y ago
  Only on Hacker News is Rust considered a mainstream language, but I see your point :).
  - jfoutz 11y ago
    Ha! Totally agree. I do think rust has a lot of potential to take a big bite out of c/c++'s current share. But that's 10 years away, because evolution is slow.
- tdeck 11y ago
  Only on Hacker News is Rust considered a mainstream language :).
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
The more functional/immutability/strong typing/etc that gets into mainstream languages, the less compelling haskell becomes.
- Peaker 11y ago
  Do note that Haskell is moving forward all the time, and at a rate faster than mainstream is adopting these ideas. Mainstream languages have lambdas, more immutability and stronger types? That's great (non-sarcastically!). Haskell now has GADTs, rank-n types, polymorphic kinds, type families (poor name for type-level functions), and more. These things make Haskell still quite compelling over other more mainstream languages, if you're willing to learn.
  - eru 11y ago
    > Do note that Haskell is moving forward all the time, and at a rate faster than mainstream is adopting these ideas. In some sense, yes. On the other hand, there are diminishing returns. As an example, the increase in software quality from a Java-like language adopting any of algebraic data types, parametric polymorphism or first class higher order functions is probably much bigger than Haskell moving to full on dependent types.
    - wereHamster 11y ago
      I have yet to find a mainstream language which implements any of those features well. Show me one which didn't have and now has proper ADTs.
      - eru 11y ago
        Depends on how high you set your standards. Ie Python mostly has higher order functions that work, even though for mostly syntax reasons they interact badly with mutating variables---a bit of sugar would help a lot. In any case, your point stands and complements mine. (Apropos ADTs, did Scala always have them? From what I can tell their syntax is pretty awkward, though. Google's Protobuf, which in some sense denotes a type system, even if not a programming language, did get something like ADTs: https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto3#oneof https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto3#o... I am pretty lenient, and would go for anything that resembles a compiler-enforced tagged union. (Think C-style union.))
DonaldFisk 11y ago
Many, perhaps most, programmers from mainstream languages (i.e. Algol derivatives) find it difficult to get their heads around Haskell in particular and functional programming in general (including Lisp). This is not a problem with Haskell.
- pekk 11y ago
  Usually, in any other area, an interface made intentionally to be unintelligible to the general public as well as a professional target audience would be derided as bad design. In the case of Haskell, it is taken as a badge of virtue, and it is a matter of faith that the problem is just that all other programming languages have mis-educated everyone who doesn't "get religion" about Haskell. If Haskell's interface is hard to understand, that is a problem with Haskell.
  - the_af 11y ago
    Haskell's interface isn't intentionally unintelligible. In fact, it's not unintelligible at all (don't confuse playful exploratory code with standard code, just like you wouldn't think obfuscated C is standard). It's just that you're unfamiliar with it. Most ideas behind Haskell are quite logical and systematic.
  - DonaldFisk 11y ago
    > Usually, in any other area, an interface made intentionally to be unintelligible to the general public as well as a professional target audience would be derided as bad design. Evidence that Haskell was deliberately made difficult to understand? And supposing this were true, why hasn't anyone made the interface more intelligible? > If Haskell's interface is hard to understand, that is a problem with Haskell. That's a bit like saying that if the mathematics used in the General Theory of Relativity is hard to understand, it is a problem with the General Theory of Relativity.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > That's a bit like saying that if the mathematics used in the General Theory of Relativity is hard to understand, it is a problem with the General Theory of Relativity. Well, but that's true; if there were easier-to-understand mathematics that had equal utility, it would be superior. The math being hard to understand is a problem, but (as far as anyone can tell), its a necessary cost with General Relativity. So, for Haskell -- granting, for the sake of argument, that it is particularly hard to understand (which I'm not sure is really the case) -- the question is the complexity a necessary price for some benefit that is worth the cost?
cageface 11y ago
I don't think Haskell will ever become mainstream but concepts that originated in research languages like Haskell are increasingly common in more pragmatic mainstream languages. Swift owes a lot to the ML & Haskell family of languages, for example, and even C++ and Java have lambdas now.
- DonaldFisk 11y ago
  ... which Lisp had in 1960.
  - such_a_casual 11y ago
    When I look at some of the fundamental differences between lisp and the mainstream languages (like everything-as-expressions and explicit scoping of variables and functions), I realize that Lisp is centuries ahead of its time. How long is it going to take mainstream languages to implement explicit scoping like let and flet? 75 years after lisp was born? How long for everything-as-expressions (which gives code a logical structure and eliminates the need for throwaway variables)? 100 years? 200 years? Will we even have programming languages by then?
    - omaranto 11y ago
      Ruby counts as mainstream, right? It is expression based.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      > explicit scoping like let and flet? I'm not sure how this is different than introducing a block in C.
      - such_a_casual 11y ago
        I haven't programmed in C, but my view comes from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM1iUe6IofM&feature=youtu.be&t=40m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM1iUe6IofM&feature=youtu.be... What would be the C equivalent of: (let ((last-response)) (defun get-response () (print last-response) (setf last-response (read)))) (print (get-response)) (print (get-response)) Notice that no other function can use last-response. It only exists for get-response, but it exists outside the scope of get-response. Does C have this?

by tdeck 11y ago

tormeh 11y ago

Well, functional programming has a lot of good ideas in it, it's just that people generally want the functional stuff in addition to, or at least only partially replacing, the imperative stuff. Laziness has gone out of style. Object orientation is going nowhere. Functional programming is arriving right now, but not as Haskell. As an aside, I think of Haskell as a sensei/guru saying, "Young grasshopper, if you want access to the glory that is my wisdom you will have to wash my dishes and scrape off my calluses for the next three years" to which my personal reply is "Hell no". It¨s unfriendly and it doesn't respect my time. Is there wisdom in Haskell? Probably, but I don't have the patience to deal with the bullshit.

jfoutz 11y ago

Evolution is slow. Java imho brought garbage collection to the mainstream. lisp had been doing that for 20 years or so. I don't think Haskell itself will ever be the language of choice, it'll probably fall into (remain in?) a smalltalk like life. That said, functional idioms seem to be creeping into lots of mainstream languages, so it's not like never. Rust seems pretty heavily influenced by ml, and somewhat by haskell.

tdeck 11y ago
Only on Hacker News is Rust considered a mainstream language, but I see your point :).
- jfoutz 11y ago
  Ha! Totally agree. I do think rust has a lot of potential to take a big bite out of c/c++'s current share. But that's 10 years away, because evolution is slow.
tdeck 11y ago
Only on Hacker News is Rust considered a mainstream language :).

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago

The more functional/immutability/strong typing/etc that gets into mainstream languages, the less compelling haskell becomes.

Peaker 11y ago
Do note that Haskell is moving forward all the time, and at a rate faster than mainstream is adopting these ideas. Mainstream languages have lambdas, more immutability and stronger types? That's great (non-sarcastically!). Haskell now has GADTs, rank-n types, polymorphic kinds, type families (poor name for type-level functions), and more. These things make Haskell still quite compelling over other more mainstream languages, if you're willing to learn.
- eru 11y ago
  > Do note that Haskell is moving forward all the time, and at a rate faster than mainstream is adopting these ideas. In some sense, yes. On the other hand, there are diminishing returns. As an example, the increase in software quality from a Java-like language adopting any of algebraic data types, parametric polymorphism or first class higher order functions is probably much bigger than Haskell moving to full on dependent types.
  - wereHamster 11y ago
    I have yet to find a mainstream language which implements any of those features well. Show me one which didn't have and now has proper ADTs.
    - eru 11y ago
      Depends on how high you set your standards. Ie Python mostly has higher order functions that work, even though for mostly syntax reasons they interact badly with mutating variables---a bit of sugar would help a lot. In any case, your point stands and complements mine. (Apropos ADTs, did Scala always have them? From what I can tell their syntax is pretty awkward, though. Google's Protobuf, which in some sense denotes a type system, even if not a programming language, did get something like ADTs: https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto3#oneof https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto3#o... I am pretty lenient, and would go for anything that resembles a compiler-enforced tagged union. (Think C-style union.))

DonaldFisk 11y ago

Many, perhaps most, programmers from mainstream languages (i.e. Algol derivatives) find it difficult to get their heads around Haskell in particular and functional programming in general (including Lisp). This is not a problem with Haskell.

pekk 11y ago
Usually, in any other area, an interface made intentionally to be unintelligible to the general public as well as a professional target audience would be derided as bad design. In the case of Haskell, it is taken as a badge of virtue, and it is a matter of faith that the problem is just that all other programming languages have mis-educated everyone who doesn't "get religion" about Haskell. If Haskell's interface is hard to understand, that is a problem with Haskell.
- the_af 11y ago
  Haskell's interface isn't intentionally unintelligible. In fact, it's not unintelligible at all (don't confuse playful exploratory code with standard code, just like you wouldn't think obfuscated C is standard). It's just that you're unfamiliar with it. Most ideas behind Haskell are quite logical and systematic.
- DonaldFisk 11y ago
  > Usually, in any other area, an interface made intentionally to be unintelligible to the general public as well as a professional target audience would be derided as bad design. Evidence that Haskell was deliberately made difficult to understand? And supposing this were true, why hasn't anyone made the interface more intelligible? > If Haskell's interface is hard to understand, that is a problem with Haskell. That's a bit like saying that if the mathematics used in the General Theory of Relativity is hard to understand, it is a problem with the General Theory of Relativity.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > That's a bit like saying that if the mathematics used in the General Theory of Relativity is hard to understand, it is a problem with the General Theory of Relativity. Well, but that's true; if there were easier-to-understand mathematics that had equal utility, it would be superior. The math being hard to understand is a problem, but (as far as anyone can tell), its a necessary cost with General Relativity. So, for Haskell -- granting, for the sake of argument, that it is particularly hard to understand (which I'm not sure is really the case) -- the question is the complexity a necessary price for some benefit that is worth the cost?

cageface 11y ago

I don't think Haskell will ever become mainstream but concepts that originated in research languages like Haskell are increasingly common in more pragmatic mainstream languages. Swift owes a lot to the ML & Haskell family of languages, for example, and even C++ and Java have lambdas now.

DonaldFisk 11y ago
... which Lisp had in 1960.
- such_a_casual 11y ago
  When I look at some of the fundamental differences between lisp and the mainstream languages (like everything-as-expressions and explicit scoping of variables and functions), I realize that Lisp is centuries ahead of its time. How long is it going to take mainstream languages to implement explicit scoping like let and flet? 75 years after lisp was born? How long for everything-as-expressions (which gives code a logical structure and eliminates the need for throwaway variables)? 100 years? 200 years? Will we even have programming languages by then?
  - omaranto 11y ago
    Ruby counts as mainstream, right? It is expression based.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    > explicit scoping like let and flet? I'm not sure how this is different than introducing a block in C.
    - such_a_casual 11y ago
      I haven't programmed in C, but my view comes from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM1iUe6IofM&feature=youtu.be&t=40m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM1iUe6IofM&feature=youtu.be... What would be the C equivalent of: (let ((last-response)) (defun get-response () (print last-response) (setf last-response (read)))) (print (get-response)) (print (get-response)) Notice that no other function can use last-response. It only exists for get-response, but it exists outside the scope of get-response. Does C have this?