3 ms·
Part of this is that with Haskell it's much more like there's one right way to do things, and that's it. JavaScript is a multi-paradigm language and so in that
by bartread 10y ago
Part of this is that with Haskell it's much more like there's one right way to do things, and that's it. JavaScript is a multi-paradigm language and so in that way it's always possible to get into more of a mess. I could say the same about, for example, C++.
Maybe beginners do struggle with Haskell but, if you want my two cents, the reason nobody really bothered with it back when I was at university - except for assignments where we had to use it - was because there was no call for it out in the world (this is going back 17 years). Most people built their projects in C, C++, or Java because those were what you needed to get a job. I'd also observe that the same people that struggled with Haskell also struggled with C, C++, and Java [1].
Again, based on the assignments where people did write Haskell I'd have to suggest that it absolutely is (or was) possible to write terrible code in Haskell. Certainly it's possible to write broken, fragile, or barely functional code that's hard to understand.
[1] This is of course anecdotal evidence based on a small sample size - maybe 40 people on the course.
- pimeys 10y agoFunny, because I would hire a person straight from university as a junior developer, if she chose to write all the assignments with Haskell instead of going with C/C++/Java/whateverpopularlanguage. That would be a really good sign.
- bartread 10y agoI think times have changed though. Functional languages just weren't big back then the way they are now. Back in those days Haskell was sloooooooow. There's 17 years of runtime and compiler optimisation, not to mention MUCH faster hardware, that's been developed in between. It's now totally realistic to use the expressive power of functional languages on real-world workloads in a way that it mostly wasn't back in Y2K.