3 ms·

Their complaint about Haskell is based on a common misconception. You can do everything in Haskell that you can in a non-pure language, including in-place mutat

Their complaint about Haskell is based on a common misconception. You can do everything in Haskell that you can in a non-pure language, including in-place mutation (e.g. IORef, Data.Vector.Generic.Mutable, etc.), strict functions, manual memory allocation, and so on.

masklinn 5y ago
> Their complaint about Haskell is based on a common misconception Misconception is way too kind a word. And it's quite ironic (though not necessarily unsurprising) seeing the article's namecalling of bad faith as it engages in paragaph after paragraph of bad faith and being plain wrong.
- brabel 5y ago
  I found the article quite interesting and funny (in a good way) and I have trouble understanding why anyone would think it's written in bad faith. He's not attacking you personally for being a Haskeller, he's just making light fun of the fact that Haskell requires monads to do IO and won't let you do it any other way, how is that bad faith?
  - herbstein 5y ago
    The fact that monads aren't technically required to perform IO at all but rather is an abstraction that meshes nicely with the Haskell way of doing things. If you don't want to use monads for IO you're certainly going to meet resistance in terms of library support.
  - pyrale 5y ago
    > I have trouble understanding why anyone would think it's written in bad faith. Well, for one, it's hard to start a good-faith discussion about a tool by calling it totalitarian in the introduction paragraph.
    - philosopher1234 5y ago
      Eh. You can still engage with their point. Exaggerating a bit isn’t the end of the world.
      - pyrale 5y ago
        Fair enough. I'm gonna call that person a nazi, that should make a point that maybe they're a bit extreme.
    - Nevermark 5y ago
      I think that the extreme word was intended to tip the reader that the OP's analysis was whimsical as well as practical. And not completely formal. I apologize that the above paragraph does not actually convey the humor it was written to explain. Unfortunately, no one can be told what humor is. You have to feel it for yourself.
      - pyrale 5y ago
        I understand the undertone. My point is that making fun of something you don't like, however light the fun is, is not a good faith technique. Now, that Doesn't mean bad faith discourse can't be hilarious, Conrad Barski had made that same joke quite well in his comics. It's just hard to make it the start of a honest discussion on the topic.
        useragent86 5y ago
        Nonsense. It's your choice, as a reader, to refuse to entertain it as an honest discussion, just because you don't like its style. And it's your choice to ascribe bad-faith intentions to the writer just because you don't like its style. (Note that the writer even defined the concept of bad faith as he was referring to it, and was not using it in the way you are.) It's striking how preferences in programming languages seem to mirror preferences in communication style: You demand that the writer express himself in your preferred style, and if he does not, you accuse him of not writing in good faith. The writer, on the other hand, writes in a liberal style, full of metaphor and references to philosophies outside of computer science. You only tolerate a narrow range of expression, while he welcomes wide and varied expression. You take offense rather than seeking to understand the intended meaning, while he takes into account others' interpretations and tries to meet in the middle: https://hyperthings.garden/posts/2021-08-30/freeing-your-goats.html https://hyperthings.garden/posts/2021-08-30/freeing-your-goa... There are some life lessons to be found in these exchanges. Postel's Law is not well-followed anymore.

masklinn 5y ago

> Their complaint about Haskell is based on a common misconception Misconception is way too kind a word. And it's quite ironic (though not necessarily unsurprising) seeing the article's namecalling of bad faith as it engages in paragaph after paragraph of bad faith and being plain wrong.

brabel 5y ago
I found the article quite interesting and funny (in a good way) and I have trouble understanding why anyone would think it's written in bad faith. He's not attacking you personally for being a Haskeller, he's just making light fun of the fact that Haskell requires monads to do IO and won't let you do it any other way, how is that bad faith?
- herbstein 5y ago
  The fact that monads aren't technically required to perform IO at all but rather is an abstraction that meshes nicely with the Haskell way of doing things. If you don't want to use monads for IO you're certainly going to meet resistance in terms of library support.
- pyrale 5y ago
  > I have trouble understanding why anyone would think it's written in bad faith. Well, for one, it's hard to start a good-faith discussion about a tool by calling it totalitarian in the introduction paragraph.
  - philosopher1234 5y ago
    Eh. You can still engage with their point. Exaggerating a bit isn’t the end of the world.
    - pyrale 5y ago
      Fair enough. I'm gonna call that person a nazi, that should make a point that maybe they're a bit extreme.
  - Nevermark 5y ago
    I think that the extreme word was intended to tip the reader that the OP's analysis was whimsical as well as practical. And not completely formal. I apologize that the above paragraph does not actually convey the humor it was written to explain. Unfortunately, no one can be told what humor is. You have to feel it for yourself.
    - pyrale 5y ago
      I understand the undertone. My point is that making fun of something you don't like, however light the fun is, is not a good faith technique. Now, that Doesn't mean bad faith discourse can't be hilarious, Conrad Barski had made that same joke quite well in his comics. It's just hard to make it the start of a honest discussion on the topic.
      - useragent86 5y ago
        Nonsense. It's your choice, as a reader, to refuse to entertain it as an honest discussion, just because you don't like its style. And it's your choice to ascribe bad-faith intentions to the writer just because you don't like its style. (Note that the writer even defined the concept of bad faith as he was referring to it, and was not using it in the way you are.) It's striking how preferences in programming languages seem to mirror preferences in communication style: You demand that the writer express himself in your preferred style, and if he does not, you accuse him of not writing in good faith. The writer, on the other hand, writes in a liberal style, full of metaphor and references to philosophies outside of computer science. You only tolerate a narrow range of expression, while he welcomes wide and varied expression. You take offense rather than seeking to understand the intended meaning, while he takes into account others' interpretations and tries to meet in the middle: https://hyperthings.garden/posts/2021-08-30/freeing-your-goats.html https://hyperthings.garden/posts/2021-08-30/freeing-your-goa... There are some life lessons to be found in these exchanges. Postel's Law is not well-followed anymore.