3 ms·

> pure and abstract Like math? Engineers would rather not use math? > It was intended as an informal argument Maybe. But at this point it just looks like a m

> pure and abstract Like math? Engineers would rather not use math? > It was intended as an informal argument Maybe. But at this point it just looks like a mean dig at Haskell. A better word would be opinionated. Haskell is opinionated, and that is fine. The biggest bait in this thread is using the term "engineers". It should rather be: people trained in imperative programming in mainstream imperative languages. Then it makes sense.

mook 5y ago
> Like math? Engineers would rather not use math? Gosh yes engineers would rather not use math. If there are approximations that work well enough (and when incorrect goes the way that leads to buildings not falling down) engineers definitely like to use less math. For one thing, less math means less room to make mistakes, and often ugly but works well is better than elegant with a higher chance of failing due to people screwing up.
- youerbt 5y ago
  > If there are approximations And approximations are not math all of the sudden? > definitely like to use less math Is your point that they would rather work less than more? Easier than harder? Cus that is not very relevant and applies to every kind of work. Or less math and more something else that you hand wave so hard it is not clear what it might be?
  - mook 5y ago
    >> If there are approximations > And approximations are not math all of the sudden? The context was Haskell versus OCaml, so yeah — Haskell is the more academic, pure math. Ocaml (in this context) is the more approximate, but more practical option for larger projects. In practice people use things like C and Python because spherical cows are close enough.
    - youerbt 5y ago
      Ok, you are another person in this chain who decided to just drop "more practical" and call it a day. Why bother. It is especially funny in the thread about OCaml getting soon (2022 maybe) multicore support. Something this less practical ivory tower Haskell had before it was even cool.
      - ernst_klim 5y ago
        Python still has GIL and it's definitely more practical and widely adopted.

mook 5y ago

> Like math? Engineers would rather not use math? Gosh yes engineers would rather not use math. If there are approximations that work well enough (and when incorrect goes the way that leads to buildings not falling down) engineers definitely like to use less math. For one thing, less math means less room to make mistakes, and often ugly but works well is better than elegant with a higher chance of failing due to people screwing up.

youerbt 5y ago
> If there are approximations And approximations are not math all of the sudden? > definitely like to use less math Is your point that they would rather work less than more? Easier than harder? Cus that is not very relevant and applies to every kind of work. Or less math and more something else that you hand wave so hard it is not clear what it might be?
- mook 5y ago
  >> If there are approximations > And approximations are not math all of the sudden? The context was Haskell versus OCaml, so yeah — Haskell is the more academic, pure math. Ocaml (in this context) is the more approximate, but more practical option for larger projects. In practice people use things like C and Python because spherical cows are close enough.
  - youerbt 5y ago
    Ok, you are another person in this chain who decided to just drop "more practical" and call it a day. Why bother. It is especially funny in the thread about OCaml getting soon (2022 maybe) multicore support. Something this less practical ivory tower Haskell had before it was even cool.
    - ernst_klim 5y ago
      Python still has GIL and it's definitely more practical and widely adopted.