5 ms·
It is true, but it's also unfortunate—I think a lot of Haskell's strengths come from its type system. So what makes Haskell worth learning also makes it hard to
by iustin 16y ago
It is true, but it's also unfortunate—I think a lot of Haskell's strengths come from its type system. So what makes Haskell worth learning also makes it hard to learn Haskell :)
- silentbicycle 16y agoHaskell's type system is unfortunate, because for most programmers, 80+% of the benefit comes from how it utterly nails the basics (checking variant type coverage in pattern matching, typeclasses), but the language community is focused on the cutting edge top .003%, because that's where the research papers are.
- strait 16y agoAfter working through a few of my own Haskell projects, I eventually found the type system disappointing. A better design would have made it even more sophisticated and harder to learn, IMO. That's the price to pay for being purely functional. Instead, I felt that certain design trade-offs were made, which in effect, make the type system awkward and tend to lead to inflexibility in writing ambitious, comprehensive programs.
- silentbicycle 16y agoAny examples you care to share?
- nickik 16y agoIit's also unfortunate - I think a lot of Clojure's strengths come from its macro system. So what makes Clojure worth learning also makes it hard to learn Clojure :) There is stuff to learn in every language :)