5 ms·

> drive, intellectual curiosity and desire for a challenge literally none of these is related to intelligence. And even if they did, to assert that not wanti

> drive, intellectual curiosity and desire for a challenge literally none of these is related to intelligence. And even if they did, to assert that not wanting to learn Haskell has anything to do with "drive, intellectual curiosity and desire for a challenge" is ridiculous. There are a million reasons a person that exhibits all three of those qualities could opt not to.

tome 6y ago
> literally none of these is related to intelligence. GP didn't mention the word "intelligence"
- alexbanks 6y ago
  smart adjective, smart·er, smart·est. - having or showing quick intelligence or ready mental capability They said "smart", I said "intelligence".
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    We could arguably account "drive, intellectual curiosity and desire for a challenge" as particular mental capabilities.
    - alexbanks 6y ago
      Every time Haskell is discussed, lots of valid critiques show up as to why it's not more successful, and yet every single time, without fail, the conversation devolves heavily into "People aren't smart enough." The person I was responding to literally said that Haskell wouldn't catch on because most developers aren't smart enough, and then defined "smart" as those three things. I am arguing a series of things. First, that being "smart" does not always mean those three things. Second, that being "smart" does not mean that you'd care to learn Haskell. Third, to suggest a tool isn't catching on because the members of the programming community aren't "smart" enough is so masturbatory it's actually insane. God forbid Haskell isn't catching on because of all the valid critiques that show up in every one of these threads and then gets dismissed under this same "Haskell smart" rhetoric. Haskell will not catch on because the community thinks it is too smart to have to actually accommodate the programming community. Simple as that.
      - dllthomas 6y ago
        > The person I was responding to literally said that Haskell wouldn't catch on because most developers aren't smart enough, and then defined "smart" as those three things. The person used "smart" in scare quotes, and defined that usage of smart as being those things. That seems like an explicit mark that they are not talking about all of the usual definition of the word. > Second, that being "smart" does not mean that you'd care to learn Haskell. That's irrelevant. If X is necessary for Y, lack of X is a good explanation for lack of Y even when X is not sufficient for Y. > God forbid Haskell isn't catching on because of all the valid critiques that show up in every one of these threads and then gets dismissed under this same "Haskell smart" rhetoric. If you're looking in from the outside, you may not be in a good place to distinguish between "all of these valid critiques" and "invalid complaints that arise because of misunderstanding, dated info, or outright FUD". There are absolutely valid critiques of Haskell. Most of my problems with it are things that are even more present in languages that have caught on, though, so they cannot stand alone as an explanation. All of that said, "people aren't smart enough" isn't a claim I'd make, even with the reduced scope. I just don't think your argument is well formed.
        alexbanks 6y ago
        > If you're looking in from the outside, It's weird, then, that the person that wrote the article that you and I are both commenting on has written a well regarded book using Haskell and their assertion is exactly the same as mine, no? It's also weird that the subject of this article is meant to be Rust, and yet here we are debating the idea that "Devs just aren't smart enough to understand haskell". But, as always, I wouldn't expect a conversation about Haskell to really go anywhere. You can't comment unless you've drank the kool aid, and if you've drank the kool aid you're required to spout the same rhetoric.
        dllthomas 6y ago
        > their assertion is exactly the same as mine ... their assertion was that the problem was the exactly the same unspecified pile of "valid critiques that show up in every one of these threads"? > I wouldn't expect a conversation about Haskell to really go anywhere. Many conversations I've had about Haskell - pro and con - have gone really interesting places. But as your experience has differed, and you appear to think that's predictive, I'll take this opportunity to remove that common variable by wrapping up discussion here. Snark aside, I wish you well.

tome 6y ago

> literally none of these is related to intelligence. GP didn't mention the word "intelligence"

alexbanks 6y ago
smart adjective, smart·er, smart·est. - having or showing quick intelligence or ready mental capability They said "smart", I said "intelligence".
- dllthomas 6y ago
  We could arguably account "drive, intellectual curiosity and desire for a challenge" as particular mental capabilities.
  - alexbanks 6y ago
    Every time Haskell is discussed, lots of valid critiques show up as to why it's not more successful, and yet every single time, without fail, the conversation devolves heavily into "People aren't smart enough." The person I was responding to literally said that Haskell wouldn't catch on because most developers aren't smart enough, and then defined "smart" as those three things. I am arguing a series of things. First, that being "smart" does not always mean those three things. Second, that being "smart" does not mean that you'd care to learn Haskell. Third, to suggest a tool isn't catching on because the members of the programming community aren't "smart" enough is so masturbatory it's actually insane. God forbid Haskell isn't catching on because of all the valid critiques that show up in every one of these threads and then gets dismissed under this same "Haskell smart" rhetoric. Haskell will not catch on because the community thinks it is too smart to have to actually accommodate the programming community. Simple as that.
    - dllthomas 6y ago
      > The person I was responding to literally said that Haskell wouldn't catch on because most developers aren't smart enough, and then defined "smart" as those three things. The person used "smart" in scare quotes, and defined that usage of smart as being those things. That seems like an explicit mark that they are not talking about all of the usual definition of the word. > Second, that being "smart" does not mean that you'd care to learn Haskell. That's irrelevant. If X is necessary for Y, lack of X is a good explanation for lack of Y even when X is not sufficient for Y. > God forbid Haskell isn't catching on because of all the valid critiques that show up in every one of these threads and then gets dismissed under this same "Haskell smart" rhetoric. If you're looking in from the outside, you may not be in a good place to distinguish between "all of these valid critiques" and "invalid complaints that arise because of misunderstanding, dated info, or outright FUD". There are absolutely valid critiques of Haskell. Most of my problems with it are things that are even more present in languages that have caught on, though, so they cannot stand alone as an explanation. All of that said, "people aren't smart enough" isn't a claim I'd make, even with the reduced scope. I just don't think your argument is well formed.
      - alexbanks 6y ago
        > If you're looking in from the outside, It's weird, then, that the person that wrote the article that you and I are both commenting on has written a well regarded book using Haskell and their assertion is exactly the same as mine, no? It's also weird that the subject of this article is meant to be Rust, and yet here we are debating the idea that "Devs just aren't smart enough to understand haskell". But, as always, I wouldn't expect a conversation about Haskell to really go anywhere. You can't comment unless you've drank the kool aid, and if you've drank the kool aid you're required to spout the same rhetoric.
        dllthomas 6y ago
        > their assertion is exactly the same as mine ... their assertion was that the problem was the exactly the same unspecified pile of "valid critiques that show up in every one of these threads"? > I wouldn't expect a conversation about Haskell to really go anywhere. Many conversations I've had about Haskell - pro and con - have gone really interesting places. But as your experience has differed, and you appear to think that's predictive, I'll take this opportunity to remove that common variable by wrapping up discussion here. Snark aside, I wish you well.