4 ms·

> has been so incredibly successful in such a short time. 1) Our industry is obsessed with new and shiny. 2) There are a lot of developers and companies who d

> has been so incredibly successful in such a short time. 1) Our industry is obsessed with new and shiny. 2) There are a lot of developers and companies who don't have the time to invest in a new paradigm or language. 3) By learning/using golang these developers and companies can look "hip" and forward thinking with minimal effort. With a Java background and a 10 hour investment in golang you can write decent software. With a 10 hour investment in Haskell you can't do anything.

CJefferson 10y ago
The problem is, people tell me that if I just learn Haskell, Idris, Closure, Coffescript, Rust, C++17, C#, F#, Swift, D, Lua, Scala, Ruby, Python, Lisp, Scheme, Julia, Emacs Lisp, Vimscript, Smalltalk, Tcl, Verilog, Perl, Go... then I'll finally find 'programming nirvana'. While you might think it's worth spending 100+ hours learning Haskell, I don't (at the moment) have any reason to Haskell as a better time investment than anything else on that list.. why should I give it more than 10 hours?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sheepmullet 10y ago
  I completely agree.
- doall 10y ago
  Just a typo, but you mean Clojure？ :)
- angry_octet 10y ago
  I don't know about you, but everything I work on is going to be something that someone will have to maintain, or will be actively developed by multiple people with different categories of expertise. Also, I usually want to build on other people's work (i.e. libraries). So while I'd love to write big chunks of Haskell, if its just me doing it, that code will be nuked and rewritten unless I also undertake a project of education. So accessibility is key. Go/python/js seem to win in that regard, and likewise in access to libraries. So unless as an organisation there is motivation to step up skilling, e.g. because there is a lot of money at stake if something breaks (e.g. trading software), or because there is a community of practice (compilers) its hard to see Haskell gaining much ground. Likewise all those other languages has their niche, and it is hard to seem them displacing each other.
- rs86 10y ago
  100 hours is really optimistic for haskell

CJefferson 10y ago

The problem is, people tell me that if I just learn Haskell, Idris, Closure, Coffescript, Rust, C++17, C#, F#, Swift, D, Lua, Scala, Ruby, Python, Lisp, Scheme, Julia, Emacs Lisp, Vimscript, Smalltalk, Tcl, Verilog, Perl, Go... then I'll finally find 'programming nirvana'. While you might think it's worth spending 100+ hours learning Haskell, I don't (at the moment) have any reason to Haskell as a better time investment than anything else on that list.. why should I give it more than 10 hours?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sheepmullet 10y ago
I completely agree.
doall 10y ago
Just a typo, but you mean Clojure？ :)
angry_octet 10y ago
I don't know about you, but everything I work on is going to be something that someone will have to maintain, or will be actively developed by multiple people with different categories of expertise. Also, I usually want to build on other people's work (i.e. libraries). So while I'd love to write big chunks of Haskell, if its just me doing it, that code will be nuked and rewritten unless I also undertake a project of education. So accessibility is key. Go/python/js seem to win in that regard, and likewise in access to libraries. So unless as an organisation there is motivation to step up skilling, e.g. because there is a lot of money at stake if something breaks (e.g. trading software), or because there is a community of practice (compilers) its hard to see Haskell gaining much ground. Likewise all those other languages has their niche, and it is hard to seem them displacing each other.
rs86 10y ago
100 hours is really optimistic for haskell