3 ms·
The types of posts that get downvoted on here is at times maddening. This to me, is the only reply thus far that addresses what I also perceive to be the funda
by alexashka 6y ago
The types of posts that get downvoted on here is at times maddening.
This to me, is the only reply thus far that addresses what I also perceive to be the fundamental problem with Haskell - it doesn't provide any new convenient tools to solve real world problems, while requiring one learns a bunch of useless abstractions that aren't used anywhere else in industry as a default (monads, laziness, immutability)
- kod 6y ago"Favor Immutability" - Effective Java, circa 2001 Should not be controversial at this point.
- mlthoughts2018 6y agoImmutability is great. What does that have to do with Haskell?
- FullyFunctional 6y ago(It's a HN rule not to discuss down votes) However the problem with the parent post of that it presumes Haskell isn't useful because of X, when clearly it's useful for many and changing X would make it not Haskell. That sort of comment isn't useful. I think for as long as I have known Haskell (1992-) there has been interest in and a desire for a strict variant of Haskell. In 2020 it seems there are a lot more options for that, which is great, but they aren't Haskell.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago> “ changing X would make it not Haskell” this seems like some version of a No True Scotsman argument.
- shigeo 6y agoIf you remove monadic IO, laziness and immutability from Haskell, then you're a lot closer to OCaml than you are to Haskell. But more importantly, immutability is used everywhere in the industry.