3 ms·
I don't know. I love haskell, but it fits the bill of a language so hard to learn that people need tools to help in the beginning. Yet haskell tooling isn't tha
by imh 10y ago
I don't know. I love haskell, but it fits the bill of a language so hard to learn that people need tools to help in the beginning. Yet haskell tooling isn't that great. I'd guess that it's a question of priorities.
- wtallis 10y agoI suspect haskell might be in a difficulty class beyond rust, where really good tooling still wouldn't be enough to make it significantly more accessible. The things rust requires a C++ programmer to learn also seem to be relatively amenable to mechanical assistance.
- imh 10y agoIf haskell is that much harder, it should benefit from better tooling that much more. I think there really is a big difference in the priorities. I've never played around with GHC, so I have no idea how hard tooling is, but I know some good old humans are at least able to contribute (https://izbicki.me/blog/error-messages-in-ghc-vs-g%2B%2B.html https://izbicki.me/blog/error-messages-in-ghc-vs-g%2B%2B.htm...). edit: It looks like the error message changes may have been reverted (https://phabricator.haskell.org/rGHC92c924e07dfef327509555c27a5478d9851ec9fa https://phabricator.haskell.org/rGHC92c924e07dfef327509555c2...) :( Sad that they reverted it instead of fixed it.
- iopq 10y agoWriting Rust code is more difficult than writing Haskell code. Haskell is more than okay with taking a performance hit for convenience. Rust APIs actually have you pass in references to buffers where you want your data to end up. Rust doesn't use GC and tries to focus on pay-as-you-use abstractions. That's a lot more control, but also more verbosity.