2 ms·
Hm, this paper is pretty obviously promoting Haskell. The main authors wrote the haskell variant, did not even execute the other prototypes and make conclusions
by ysleepy 9y ago
Hm, this paper is pretty obviously promoting Haskell. The main authors wrote the haskell variant, did not even execute the other prototypes and make conclusions without any sort of comparison except LOC.
I like haskell, but this paper is doing a poor job of representing scientific honesty.
- emef 9y agoThey added many disclaimers saying that LOC alone is a bad metric and it's more interesting to look at characteristics of the code for anecdotes. The article is full of of advice to take the findings with a grain of salt. They don't even mention haskell in the conclusion, they just say that functional programming is well-suited to rapid prototyping.
- jejones3141 9y agoThe people conducting the test also, without the authors' knowledge, got a grad student, gave him eight days to learn Haskell (with no formal training, but the option to ask a more experienced Haskell programmer questions), and then handed him the problem spec and told him to implement it in Haskell. He did it in eight hours with a bit under twice as many LOC as the paper's authors' version. The paper's authors also point out issues with the study, and describe it as showing the possible worth of functional languages, not Haskell specifically.