3 ms·

I really tried with Haskell but for me it was just impossible to refactor code without rewriting the whole program.

• Fellshard 7y ago
  I've been considering lately why that doesn't seem to ring quite true. I thought this for a time, then realized that a fair bit of this concern comes from lack of intuition. When you started out refactoring and making changes to object-oriented programs, how much did you have to rip out and alter each time? How did that skill improve as your designs became more thoughtful, as you began to see the seams and tailor your designs to fit those seams? I believe the same would apply for Haskell: its seams are different, but the separated concerns that come from experience and intuition should allow you to follow those seams more closely.
• chongli 7y ago
  Haskell takes serious effort to get used to and begin writing idiomatically. This should go without saying for most programming languages but it goes double for Haskell, because it's so different. One of the things I've come to appreciate about idiomatic Haskell is the library pattern (for lack of a better term). A properly designed Haskell project should be a library, not a monolithic program, and the problem you're trying to solve becomes a one-liner after importing your new library. A great example of this is Xmonad, which works exactly in that way.