3 ms·
>It is unclear to me that an idea that's useful in one of these niches should automatically be assumed to be useful in another. Yes, but you originally asked u
by setr 10y ago
>It is unclear to me that an idea that's useful in one of these niches should automatically be assumed to be useful in another.
Yes, but you originally asked us to do the opposite: to not modify a language based on the benefits shown in a different language; That an idea useful in one niche should automatically not be assumed to be useful in another.
Which of course is just as baseless as automatically assuming it will be (useful|viable|worth the effort).
Haskell is particularly irratating to see used for that opinion as well, given that is notable for being a research language; a language who at least partially exists to seek out, identify and implement ideas that can be transplanted into other languages, though of course it would naturally take a different shape once integrated.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago> Yes, but you originally asked us to do the opposite: to not modify a language based on the benefits shown in a different language Not quite. I asked you not to try to turn one language into another (that occupies a different niche). We don't need Go to become Rust, because we already have Rust. If Go becomes a better Go by stealing ideas from Rust, that's good. If Go becomes a worse Go by trying to become more of a Rust, that's a net loss. Haskell... I admit that I was not thinking of it as a research language, where the whole point is to try out ideas. It's become more than that. It's become a "real" (production) language, not just a research language. But I will grant that it (partially) exists to experiment with ideas and export them.