3 ms·

Rust? It's a fine C++ replacement. But it has nothing on Haskell in terms of practical expressiveness. I'll give it another look when it's capable of express

Rust? It's a fine C++ replacement. But it has nothing on Haskell in terms of practical expressiveness. I'll give it another look when it's capable of expressing an idea as simple as traverse.

_huayra_ 6y ago
Amen. The real benefit of Haskell is not some hyper performance optimization (when you actually truly need C++ or Rust), but for business critical applications that need to perform fairly well and, most critically, need to not be filled with bugs as it continues to evolve. Whatever amount of money someone might lose by using Haskell compared to Rust or C++ (e.g. in hiring trainers to train your engineers, the overhead in terms of your PaaS bill due to GC or whatever else) is very small compared to the savings: - Compensating a customer for an SLA violation due to some inadequately tested code path that caused an outage - Wasted developer time trying to act like a Human Compiler (e.g. including a bunch of extra code to check type expectations and handle violations gracefully....at runtime) - Wasted developer time trying to understand the dynamic behavior of some code in a PR - Wasted developer time trying to understand old crufty parts of the codebase when you refactor Perhaps it's slow(er) to compile than you might like or not as optimal as C++, but unless you can afford to hire the absolute best Python / Ruby developers available and have some airtight culture of documentation and best practices, I would venture that it's better off to stake one's intellectual property on something that can survive employee churn without that knowledge walking out of the building.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  Rust is also very good for correctness for a lot of the same reasons as Haskell.
  - valenterry 6y ago
    Rust is great and borrows many things from Haskell, but it's still very very far from Haskell.
pjmlp 6y ago
Depends, I would certainly not pick Rust over C++ for graphics or GPGPU programming as I don't plan to be one doing the ground work to build something that has the industry acceptance of SYSCL, CUDA, Qt, COM/UWP, MSL. Ironically C++ is closer to Haskell in regards to expressiveness.
nix23 6y ago
Bit sad that everyone forgets OCaml when comparing Haskell.
- grzm 6y ago
  Rather than merely lamenting that no one's mentioned OCaml, how about providing something specific about OCaml you think is relevant to contribute to the discussion?
  - nix23 6y ago
    >Rather than merely lamenting Why not read for yourself then? https://ocaml.org/ https://ocaml.org/
  - HelloNurse 6y ago
    For example, pointers about how OCaml compares to Haskell weak spots: - Basic features (e.g. records, strings, portability) - Undocumented, fragmented and/or half baked libraries - Bizarre and inconvenient "advanced" syntax - Extravagant memory usage
- chowells 6y ago
  OCaml also can't implement traverse, so....

Rust? It's a fine C++ replacement. But it has nothing on Haskell in terms of practical expressiveness. I'll give it another look when it's capable of expressing an idea as simple as traverse.

_huayra_ 6y ago

Amen. The real benefit of Haskell is not some hyper performance optimization (when you actually truly need C++ or Rust), but for business critical applications that need to perform fairly well and, most critically, need to not be filled with bugs as it continues to evolve. Whatever amount of money someone might lose by using Haskell compared to Rust or C++ (e.g. in hiring trainers to train your engineers, the overhead in terms of your PaaS bill due to GC or whatever else) is very small compared to the savings: - Compensating a customer for an SLA violation due to some inadequately tested code path that caused an outage - Wasted developer time trying to act like a Human Compiler (e.g. including a bunch of extra code to check type expectations and handle violations gracefully....at runtime) - Wasted developer time trying to understand the dynamic behavior of some code in a PR - Wasted developer time trying to understand old crufty parts of the codebase when you refactor Perhaps it's slow(er) to compile than you might like or not as optimal as C++, but unless you can afford to hire the absolute best Python / Ruby developers available and have some airtight culture of documentation and best practices, I would venture that it's better off to stake one's intellectual property on something that can survive employee churn without that knowledge walking out of the building.

nicoburns 6y ago
Rust is also very good for correctness for a lot of the same reasons as Haskell.
- valenterry 6y ago
  Rust is great and borrows many things from Haskell, but it's still very very far from Haskell.

pjmlp 6y ago

Depends, I would certainly not pick Rust over C++ for graphics or GPGPU programming as I don't plan to be one doing the ground work to build something that has the industry acceptance of SYSCL, CUDA, Qt, COM/UWP, MSL. Ironically C++ is closer to Haskell in regards to expressiveness.

nix23 6y ago

Bit sad that everyone forgets OCaml when comparing Haskell.

grzm 6y ago
Rather than merely lamenting that no one's mentioned OCaml, how about providing something specific about OCaml you think is relevant to contribute to the discussion?
- nix23 6y ago
  >Rather than merely lamenting Why not read for yourself then? https://ocaml.org/ https://ocaml.org/
- HelloNurse 6y ago
  For example, pointers about how OCaml compares to Haskell weak spots: - Basic features (e.g. records, strings, portability) - Undocumented, fragmented and/or half baked libraries - Bizarre and inconvenient "advanced" syntax - Extravagant memory usage
chowells 6y ago
OCaml also can't implement traverse, so....