3 ms·
Yes, think of all the great tools written in Haskell, like pandoc and uh… a second example someone will reply to me with that no one has ever fucking heard of.
by earthboundkid 7y ago
Yes, think of all the great tools written in Haskell, like pandoc and uh… a second example someone will reply to me with that no one has ever fucking heard of.
- throwaway8941 7y agoNah, the second one is also pretty popular. https://www.shellcheck.net https://www.shellcheck.net
- earthboundkid 7y agoWell, I can say I have heard of it. It still strikes me as a pretty much trivial tool compared to the bazillion things written in Rust and Go in the last five years, but it’s better than nothing.
- kroltan 7y agoWay to get overly salty. ML is not just Haskell, there is OCaml and F# as other notable dialects. (and to a much more limited extent, Rust, which borrows a few features but is otherwise more traditionally C-like) The language family lends itself very well for writing data transformation, especially tree processing (of which most parsers require), which is a very common kind of operation when writing minifiers and syntax transformers.
- earthboundkid 7y agoI agree that syntax transformations are in the wheelhouse of ML-family languages, but this just makes the absence of any popular tools besides pandoc more striking.
- kroltan 7y agoWell, the Haxe compiler is written in OCaml! But yes, I do agree that the ML family is pretty barren, at least in terms of publicly-available software. It is, perhaps, the "functional programming" of functional programming! (as in, FP is already a couple orders of magnitude less popular than OOP/procedural, ML is definitely less popular than, say, Lisp)