3 ms·

We can't predict that, and maybe it will one day, but I think that's unlikely. Academics will continue to want and extend Haskell more and more, and it'll enter

by didibus 10y ago

We can't predict that, and maybe it will one day, but I think that's unlikely. Academics will continue to want and extend Haskell more and more, and it'll enter into a conflict I believe between pushing the typed lambda programming paradigm further into research territory and having a slow and stable industry base that favors backwards compatibility, stability and performance. There might be a way to have both sustainably, but I'm not sure why we'd want that. I really wouldn't mind seeing Haskell continue to innovate and be a trial for innovative features, and have another slower Haskell like language which slowly and carefully brings back those features into itself once they've been proven mature enough.

thelambentonion 10y ago
> having a slow and stable industry base that favors backwards compatibility, stability and performance I feel as if GHC addresses backwards compatibility and stability fairly well with new language features being gated by language pragmas. [1] I don't write much Haskell in production, and what I do write isn't very performance intensive, but GHC's been pretty impressive vs. other compilers with languages at a similar level of abstraction. [1] Foldable/Traversable in Prelude was a relatively large breaking change, and it was handled in a way that minimized the impact to existing code while still advancing the language.