5 ms·

What makes you think the Haskell community is toxic? I usually hear the exact opposite.

yogthos 8y ago
I find that the Haskell community is very friendly as long as you buy into their approach to solving problems. However, my experience is that if you question the effectiveness of static typing, or ask for evidence in support of the claimed benefits you'll get a very hostile reaction. The comment above where pka snidely claims that using any alternative to types amounts to yolo is quite representative. He outright dismisses that any valid alternatives are possible, and he indirectly claims that people using other methods are being unprofessional and are cutting corners. That amounts to toxic behavior in my opinion.
- hota_mazi 8y ago
  Facts have been presented to you multiple times but your adoration of Clojure just makes you dismiss them outright. People who claim dynamic type systems are superior to static ones can be dismissed in much the same way flat earthers can because both choose to dismiss evidence they find inconvenient.
  - AlexCoventry 8y ago
    I was going to suggest that yogthos may just be thinking of that one guy who converted from clojure to haskell and had a convert's typical evangelical zeal in #clojure, but then I read your reply. Ironic.
  - bmurphy1976 8y ago
    You know he can be wrong about some things but still make a valid point about others. How do you think this reads in relation to his primary claim about the Haskell community? > People who claim dynamic type systems are superior to static ones can be dismissed in much the same way flat earthers can because both choose to dismiss evidence they find inconvenient. Seriously. This only feeds into his narrative.
  - dang 8y ago
    This comment breaks the site guidelines in multiple ways. No personal attacks, and no programming language flamewars, please, on Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- pka 8y ago
  > However, my experience is that if you question the effectiveness of static typing, or ask for evidence in support of the claimed benefits you'll get a very hostile reaction. That's an interesting thing to say, seeing how representative figures of (specifically) the Clojure community get really defensive really quickly once somebody questions the effectiveness of dynamic typing - which I specifically didn't do. > He outright dismisses that any valid alternatives are possible I was merely dismissing your incorrect claim about logging in Haskell. And yes, not taking advantage of the type system when you are already programming in a language with a type system amounts to #yoloing it, in my opinion. Doing the same in other languages is fine, since you don't have another option really.
  - yogthos 8y ago
    I'm not really sure what you're referring to by people getting defensive to be honest. People are just telling you that their experiences don't match yours. You've already conceded that your solution is not appropriate for production, yet you keep saying the claim is incorrect. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid, and it's the definition of being defensive. You can't even acknowledge that your preferred approach to dealing with side effects has any drawbacks to it. Meanwhile, the opposite of what you're claiming is the case in practice. Other languages allow you to use monads to encode side effects if you wanted to, but Haskell is the language that doesn't give you other options.
    - pka 8y ago
      > You've already conceded that your solution is not appropriate for production I’ve done no such thing. > You can't even acknowledge that your preferred approach to dealing with side effects has any drawbacks to it. It does, probably not the drawbacks you think of though (“conceptual overhead of types”?). Generally, you seem to be awfully incompetent in a language you claim to have used for a year. That’s not a bad thing, but you don’t present your arguments with a big fat disclaimer stating that. If you did, I think there would be much less tension in these kind of discussions.
      - yogthos 8y ago

I find that the Haskell community is very friendly as long as you buy into their approach to solving problems. However, my experience is that if you question the effectiveness of static typing, or ask for evidence in support of the claimed benefits you'll get a very hostile reaction. The comment above where pka snidely claims that using any alternative to types amounts to yolo is quite representative. He outright dismisses that any valid alternatives are possible, and he indirectly claims that people using other methods are being unprofessional and are cutting corners. That amounts to toxic behavior in my opinion.

hota_mazi 8y ago
Facts have been presented to you multiple times but your adoration of Clojure just makes you dismiss them outright. People who claim dynamic type systems are superior to static ones can be dismissed in much the same way flat earthers can because both choose to dismiss evidence they find inconvenient.
- AlexCoventry 8y ago
  I was going to suggest that yogthos may just be thinking of that one guy who converted from clojure to haskell and had a convert's typical evangelical zeal in #clojure, but then I read your reply. Ironic.
- bmurphy1976 8y ago
  You know he can be wrong about some things but still make a valid point about others. How do you think this reads in relation to his primary claim about the Haskell community? > People who claim dynamic type systems are superior to static ones can be dismissed in much the same way flat earthers can because both choose to dismiss evidence they find inconvenient. Seriously. This only feeds into his narrative.
- dang 8y ago
  This comment breaks the site guidelines in multiple ways. No personal attacks, and no programming language flamewars, please, on Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
pka 8y ago
> However, my experience is that if you question the effectiveness of static typing, or ask for evidence in support of the claimed benefits you'll get a very hostile reaction. That's an interesting thing to say, seeing how representative figures of (specifically) the Clojure community get really defensive really quickly once somebody questions the effectiveness of dynamic typing - which I specifically didn't do. > He outright dismisses that any valid alternatives are possible I was merely dismissing your incorrect claim about logging in Haskell. And yes, not taking advantage of the type system when you are already programming in a language with a type system amounts to #yoloing it, in my opinion. Doing the same in other languages is fine, since you don't have another option really.
- yogthos 8y ago
  I'm not really sure what you're referring to by people getting defensive to be honest. People are just telling you that their experiences don't match yours. You've already conceded that your solution is not appropriate for production, yet you keep saying the claim is incorrect. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid, and it's the definition of being defensive. You can't even acknowledge that your preferred approach to dealing with side effects has any drawbacks to it. Meanwhile, the opposite of what you're claiming is the case in practice. Other languages allow you to use monads to encode side effects if you wanted to, but Haskell is the language that doesn't give you other options.
  - pka 8y ago
    > You've already conceded that your solution is not appropriate for production I’ve done no such thing. > You can't even acknowledge that your preferred approach to dealing with side effects has any drawbacks to it. It does, probably not the drawbacks you think of though (“conceptual overhead of types”?). Generally, you seem to be awfully incompetent in a language you claim to have used for a year. That’s not a bad thing, but you don’t present your arguments with a big fat disclaimer stating that. If you did, I think there would be much less tension in these kind of discussions.
    - yogthos 8y ago