3 ms·
As an addendum, I'd say "sorely needed tooling/ecosystem stuff once you reach sufficient size" is flexible. You can probably get by with Clojure, Scala, or F# f
by opportune 7y ago
As an addendum, I'd say "sorely needed tooling/ecosystem stuff once you reach sufficient size" is flexible. You can probably get by with Clojure, Scala, or F# for a lot longer than you can with Haskell.
- yakshaving_jgt 7y ago> You can probably get by with Clojure, Scala, or F# for a lot longer than you can with Haskell. What experience are you basing this on? It sounds like pure assumption, and doesn't at all match my experience of working at either a Scala or Clojure company, or running my businesses on Haskell.
- opportune 7y agoI actually don't have much experience with Haskell, however I do have experience with Scala and the Java and .NET ecosystems (and know personally some people very into F#). My assumption was that the libraries, build and test systems that work in JVM/.NET land probably don't work as well as in Haskell land. There are many JVM/.NET applications with very large development teams that have put a lot of work into tooling; I don't know of any large (in terms of active fulltime devs) Haskell projects so my assumptions is that these tools would be less mature there. But perhaps I'm incorrect, hence my original use of the qualifier "probably"
- karmakaze 7y agoI would immediately believe Clojure and F#. Scala I'm a bit more skeptical about. Unless it's in a restricted domain with established patterns, I've seen and can imagine seeing many more codebases which sprawl into accidentally complex messes with very poor compile time ergonomics.