3 ms·

I don't think anyone has been advocating any programming language as the "next silver bullet". Even a small productivity gain (say 5%) over a long period of ti

by Peaker 15y ago

I don't think anyone has been advocating any programming language as the "next silver bullet". Even a small productivity gain (say 5%) over a long period of time can make a very large difference, and is worth spending weeks to learn. Additionally, Haskell isn't a new little "fad" language. It is a pretty old research effort that accumulated many novel and useful ideas that are worth learning. I understand someone who knows Python and does not think learning Perl/Ruby/Lua will teach him anything substantial/new. But I think even a cursory look at Haskell will remove any doubt about whether it contains novel ideas to learn. Learning about programming languages enriches you as a programmer, and I can't imagine spending a few weeks learning novel languages and the reward not far-outweighing the costs.

SwellJoe 15y ago
"Even a small productivity gain (say 5%) over a long period of time can make a very large difference, and is worth spending weeks to learn." The question then raised is whether any given new programming language or paradigm will bring that 5% productivity gain, and in what circumstances. If it were an obvious and clear path to greater productivity, and superior to other paths to greater productivity (such as spending more time learning your editor and shell and environment, or learning about a new library in the language your work is written in, or learning new tricks in your current language), no one would hesitate to increase their productivity in this way. You seem to assume that people are choosing not to become more productive by opting not to switch to Haskell or learn Haskell or something about Haskell. There are thousands of programming languages. Shall we learn them all to become five thousand percent more productive? I'm not opposed to learning new languages. I think folks should tinker. But, I don't think it is provable that learning Haskell will make you more productive than other activities.
Someone 15y ago
Learning about novel/different languages is totally different from learning new languages, which I thought the original remark was about. The former can often be done in a few hours and will pay itself back fairly soon; the latter takes weeks, and after that, you will still be at risk of, months into a project, having to discover that there is no good library to do X yet, or that library Y wasn't the best choice after all, or having to learn some neat trick that makes debugging way easier. So, yes, I agree that learning about languages is something one should do often, but I do not think one should try to become fluent in a new language (and its libaries) too often. And yes, IMO that does apply to Haskell, too.
- Peaker 15y ago
  The reason I mentioned learning about Haskell is because it allows you to realize that you should also learn to use Haskell :-) One cannot be expected to learn the thousands of languages out there. But learning a bit about many of them is possible -- and then learning to use the most interesting ones is most probably worthy.

by Peaker 15y ago

SwellJoe 15y ago

"Even a small productivity gain (say 5%) over a long period of time can make a very large difference, and is worth spending weeks to learn." The question then raised is whether any given new programming language or paradigm will bring that 5% productivity gain, and in what circumstances. If it were an obvious and clear path to greater productivity, and superior to other paths to greater productivity (such as spending more time learning your editor and shell and environment, or learning about a new library in the language your work is written in, or learning new tricks in your current language), no one would hesitate to increase their productivity in this way. You seem to assume that people are choosing not to become more productive by opting not to switch to Haskell or learn Haskell or something about Haskell. There are thousands of programming languages. Shall we learn them all to become five thousand percent more productive? I'm not opposed to learning new languages. I think folks should tinker. But, I don't think it is provable that learning Haskell will make you more productive than other activities.

Someone 15y ago

Learning about novel/different languages is totally different from learning new languages, which I thought the original remark was about. The former can often be done in a few hours and will pay itself back fairly soon; the latter takes weeks, and after that, you will still be at risk of, months into a project, having to discover that there is no good library to do X yet, or that library Y wasn't the best choice after all, or having to learn some neat trick that makes debugging way easier. So, yes, I agree that learning about languages is something one should do often, but I do not think one should try to become fluent in a new language (and its libaries) too often. And yes, IMO that does apply to Haskell, too.

Peaker 15y ago
The reason I mentioned learning about Haskell is because it allows you to realize that you should also learn to use Haskell :-) One cannot be expected to learn the thousands of languages out there. But learning a bit about many of them is possible -- and then learning to use the most interesting ones is most probably worthy.