5 ms·

This week I need to do some crazy validation in C#. I wrote a bunch of plain imperative code. Then I thought I could use applicative validation with LinQ. I tr

This week I need to do some crazy validation in C#. I wrote a bunch of plain imperative code. Then I thought I could use applicative validation with LinQ. I tried to wrote Maybe, Either and Validation, and wanted to extract an applicative and monadic interface. Then I found there are huge pitfalls and difficulties to do it properly. I also tried the same thing in JavaScript, while it's not a safe language, but the equivalent idea is quite easy to express. The thing I found disturbing is typical static typed languages limit our expression of imagination. Every now and then I work in Java or C# project, when I tried to express some abstract I would mostly face some difficulties. When I tried to express those ideas to colleagues they mostly didn't think about those things ever. On the other hand, the dynamic nature of JavaScript (of course Ruby and Python, etc) make things easier to express and try new ideas. I can express new ideas to dynamically typed languages programmer much easier. There's definitely "box" for programming languages which prevents people from thinking "out of the box". A lot of people tend to think of Haskell as a Perlis language. And I think statically typed languages without a flexible design makes Anti-Perlis languages.

stevejb 7y ago
This is an interesting perspective. I write Haskell for fun, and sometimes for profit. My first language that I wrote in professionally was Perl 5, so I definitely understand what you are saying about the dynamic types. However, in practice I have come to the opposite conclusion. When I use a dynamically typed language, I can't escape the looming fear that I am creating a mess for myself that, if I want to use for anything non-trival, I will have to clean up later. In Haskell, I find it very freeing because I can keep writing and as long as the types work out, the "mess" is contained and my play code has a much better path to maturing.
lmm 7y ago
It sounds like you're trying to judge Haskell based on your experience of Java and C#? Don't do that. The Java/C# type systems have substantial limitations, but that's not a problem of type systems in general, it's a problem of C++-family languages specifically.
- namelosw 7y ago
  On the contrary, I'm not judging Haskell and Haskell is one of the most Perlis languages to me. I'm judging Java and C# etc (statically typed but not flexible) are Anti-Perlis because it draws too many imagination boundaries to their users.

stevejb 7y ago

This is an interesting perspective. I write Haskell for fun, and sometimes for profit. My first language that I wrote in professionally was Perl 5, so I definitely understand what you are saying about the dynamic types. However, in practice I have come to the opposite conclusion. When I use a dynamically typed language, I can't escape the looming fear that I am creating a mess for myself that, if I want to use for anything non-trival, I will have to clean up later. In Haskell, I find it very freeing because I can keep writing and as long as the types work out, the "mess" is contained and my play code has a much better path to maturing.

lmm 7y ago

It sounds like you're trying to judge Haskell based on your experience of Java and C#? Don't do that. The Java/C# type systems have substantial limitations, but that's not a problem of type systems in general, it's a problem of C++-family languages specifically.

namelosw 7y ago
On the contrary, I'm not judging Haskell and Haskell is one of the most Perlis languages to me. I'm judging Java and C# etc (statically typed but not flexible) are Anti-Perlis because it draws too many imagination boundaries to their users.