3 ms·

Sounds like you perhaps have experience of dynamically-typed languages? Haskell is statically typed, compiled, has a scalable multi-threaded runtime, a very goo

Sounds like you perhaps have experience of dynamically-typed languages? Haskell is statically typed, compiled, has a scalable multi-threaded runtime, a very good FFI; and was designed around the notion that large programs should be built by composing small programs.

est31 7y ago
Globalized type inferrence is still a problem when you want to build large programs. You change the implementation of one function and 20 functions further there is a problem and you need to figure out all the interactions on the path between. Rust strikes a great compromise here IMO.
- vikiomega9 7y ago
  Sort of sounds like the interfaces/components/boundaries/separation of concerns in your modules isn't up to scratch. This is more of an org issue around management as opposed to the language unless you think rust has a set of fetaurs that help with this
- ufo 7y ago
  I think that these days the Haskell best practices recommend adding a type annotation to all toplevel declarations, to help keep error messages manageable.
nextos 7y ago
I tend to prefer eager ML languages vs Haskell. Some lazy abstractions are a bit leaky. Performance might degrade and it's really hard to debug. Laziness is nice, but not by default perhaps.
- johnday 7y ago
  It's not difficult to enforce strictness in Haskell in the places where it matters.