24 ms·

I meant it in the objective sense of information theoretic complexity. I’m not sure what other measurements would be objective in comparison.

by kobeya 9y ago

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Is there any research which shows that Haskell is superior in terms of information theoretic complexity.? I'm not familiar with the term. The only thing I can find it in reference to Haskell is this: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Algorithm_complexity https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Algorithm_complexity which isn't really related to this: That is favoring the reader/maintainer of code over the writer. What material is there which shows that Haskell is simple in terms of information theoretic complexity and superior to other languages (not?) designed for that?
- kobeya 9y ago
  Being more rigid about semantics and formalization of program meaning means that it is a simpler process to answer queries about what a certain piece of code does vs an alternative “pragmatic” language that is riddled with exceptions and lacks a strong type system. If your job is to take a piece of code written by someone else and either fix a bug or add a feature, it is objectively easier to do when you have strong guarantees about input types and format, exceptions generated, referential transparency, side effects, execution model, etc. You also get shorter programs and simpler programs in the algorithmic complexity sense when you have strong first class features for modularity, interface definition, and constrained polymorphism. Haskell has all of these properties as good and often better than “production” languages, and has since the 90’s. Haskell is objectively better on all counts. However what matters is not objective truths but subjective realities. Haskell is also “different” in a way that is only endearing to mathematicians and CS theorists (which are really the same in the extremes). You can hire someone and train them on Haskell, but it’ll take much time and money to get them to similar comfort levels, and not everyone is willing. And with Rust, which carries over many of Haskell’s benefits to the imperative world, you can get 80% of the benefit for 20% of the cost. So why bother? If I had a time machine though, I think code dropping Haskell 98 back prior to the invention of FORTRAN would have put us in a much more desirable alternative history. One where code mostly works as advertised, security is based on proofs of correctness not boxing, requirements and intentions are more clear and explicit, etc. Too bad we live in the world we do.

I meant it in the objective sense of information theoretic complexity. I’m not sure what other measurements would be objective in comparison.

by kobeya 9y ago

I meant it in the objective sense of information theoretic complexity. I’m not sure what other measurements would be objective in comparison.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

Is there any research which shows that Haskell is superior in terms of information theoretic complexity.? I'm not familiar with the term. The only thing I can find it in reference to Haskell is this: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Algorithm_complexity https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Algorithm_complexity which isn't really related to this: That is favoring the reader/maintainer of code over the writer. What material is there which shows that Haskell is simple in terms of information theoretic complexity and superior to other languages (not?) designed for that?

kobeya 9y ago
Being more rigid about semantics and formalization of program meaning means that it is a simpler process to answer queries about what a certain piece of code does vs an alternative “pragmatic” language that is riddled with exceptions and lacks a strong type system. If your job is to take a piece of code written by someone else and either fix a bug or add a feature, it is objectively easier to do when you have strong guarantees about input types and format, exceptions generated, referential transparency, side effects, execution model, etc. You also get shorter programs and simpler programs in the algorithmic complexity sense when you have strong first class features for modularity, interface definition, and constrained polymorphism. Haskell has all of these properties as good and often better than “production” languages, and has since the 90’s. Haskell is objectively better on all counts. However what matters is not objective truths but subjective realities. Haskell is also “different” in a way that is only endearing to mathematicians and CS theorists (which are really the same in the extremes). You can hire someone and train them on Haskell, but it’ll take much time and money to get them to similar comfort levels, and not everyone is willing. And with Rust, which carries over many of Haskell’s benefits to the imperative world, you can get 80% of the benefit for 20% of the cost. So why bother? If I had a time machine though, I think code dropping Haskell 98 back prior to the invention of FORTRAN would have put us in a much more desirable alternative history. One where code mostly works as advertised, security is based on proofs of correctness not boxing, requirements and intentions are more clear and explicit, etc. Too bad we live in the world we do.