5 ms·
I've tech diligenced 200+ software companies and I've seen Haskell twice and Clojure once. The two that were using Haskell had to drop the project and rewrite b
by mbesto 5y ago
I've tech diligenced 200+ software companies and I've seen Haskell twice and Clojure once. The two that were using Haskell had to drop the project and rewrite because they couldn't find enough developers.
I have zero problems with the technical capabilities of functional programming languages, but it's simply not a smart decision to use them in for profit businesses writing CRUD apps. It simply doesn't make economic sense. When you get to scale and need to write <insert specific modular service that does this one thing really well> then it starts to make more sense.
- Tanjreeve 5y agoSo if you can find developers then it makes sense to better software in a more powerful language? That seems like not really a problem with either of those two languages.
- mbesto 5y ago"more powerful language" Heh. My pickup truck has more torque than my Ferrari, but my ferrari goes to 60 much quicker. "Power" requires context, especially when it comes to programming languages.
- Tanjreeve 5y agoThere are languages that objectively make it easier to manage complicated things. They enforce strong guards against user errors and they are easy to refactor even in a large codebase it means you can do more things with a smaller team. Whether you can find people to work on hard problems easily seems completely orthogonal to the language used in the same way that its also very hard to find top Java/C++ etc developers capable of handling non trivial work but we don't throw our hands up and say "Welp we'll just have to write it in python then because this problem is too hard".