3 ms·
Can I encourage everybody to classify their complaints according to the following scheme? http://h2.jaguarpaw.co.uk/posts/complaining-about-languages/ http://h
by tome 11y ago
Can I encourage everybody to classify their complaints according to the following scheme?
http://h2.jaguarpaw.co.uk/posts/complaining-about-languages/ http://h2.jaguarpaw.co.uk/posts/complaining-about-languages/
I believe it would help everybody understand how we can improve people's experience around Haskell.
- pekk 11y agoThese are all interacting parts which make up a system. You can't separate the parts out so cleanly when they have so many interactions.
- tome 11y agoCare to give some examples? Some examples which from my point of view seem pretty clear cut: Laziness and purity fall squarely under "language specification". There's no way of seeing them as a problem with libraries or community. 'I think a lot of the Haskell community is obsessed with mathematical "cuteness", which basically they take to mean "infix-operator-heavy" notation.' is a problem of community (and arguably language specification), certainly not of tooling or infrastructure. "String should not be [Char]" is a problem with libraries (and arguably specification). Certainly not community or tooling.
- johan_larson 11y agoWhat's the difference between "infrastructure" and "tooling" in this context?