3 ms·

OK, fair enough, not an—independent? terminal?—problem: the syntax is largely forced upon us by the semantics, it’s not a Common Lisp vs Dylan or a Python vs Lu

OK, fair enough, not an—independent? terminal?—problem: the syntax is largely forced upon us by the semantics, it’s not a Common Lisp vs Dylan or a Python vs Lua vs Ruby thing; and the semantics is the crux of the implementation approach (though not of the packaging organization being implemented). If you want to argue against the semantics, by all means, but “industry doesn’t think it looks pretty” does not cut it, even “I don’t think it looks pretty” would afford more respect on my part (not least because the speaker is then able to explain what specifically they find off-putting or annoying, while “the industry” isn’t). More details on syntax vs semantics in sibling comment[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31143616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31143616

lelanthran 5y ago
> If you want to argue against the semantics, by all means, but “industry doesn’t think it looks pretty” does not cut it I'm not arguing against semantics, and "the industry doesn't think it looks pretty" is not my argument either. My argument is that, if you want the industry to accept something, it needs to be acceptable to the industry. Haskell-ish syntax[1] has clearly been unacceptable to the industry for a long time. It's been rejected, again and again. At this point, it is pretty much guaranteed that attaching Haskell syntax to your new config format/language/application/whatever is a recipe for failure. It's not that the industry just thinks it looks ugly, it's that the industry has outright rejected how it looks. > even “I don’t think it looks pretty” would afford more respect on my part My opinion on Haskell syntax, and whether or not you respect my opinion, is also pretty much irrelevant if the industry has already rejected it. I could be thinking that it's the best thing since sliced Jesus, but that won't change the fact that the syntax of Haskell has been rejected by the industry. [1] Amongst others.
- nix23 5y ago
  >has clearly been unacceptable to the industry for a long time. What?? Galois, Facebook, IBM, Twitter, AT&T, Bank of America, Barclays Capital, NVIDIA, Microsoft and GitHub use Haskell. https://wiki.haskell.org/Haskell_in_industry https://wiki.haskell.org/Haskell_in_industry
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    > What?? Galois, Facebook, IBM, Twitter, AT&T, Bank of America, Barclays Capital, NVIDIA, Microsoft and GitHub use Haskell. So? The usage of Haskell within the entire industry is so small it's not even a rounding error. It's hard to make the argument that the industry has accepted it when the industry usage is too tiny to even measure properly.
    - physPop 5y ago
      Please define "the industry" and explain what credentials you have to know what "they" want.
      - lelanthran 5y ago
        > Please define "the industry" Programmers, and the work they do. > and explain what credentials you have to know what "they" want. It sounds ridiculous that you need "credentials" before you'd believe that Javascript, Python, Java or C# programmers, programs, projects and work doesn't each outnumber Haskell roughly 100 to 1. Just about any metric you choose to use to evaluate what the industry uses, Haskell has so little usage that it's literally difficult to measure. Job postings, TIOBE, RedMonk, SO survey, google-fight, you name it - Haskell is nowhere near rounding error percentages. Maybe you should ask yourself why it doesn't show up in significant numbers on any metric rather than asking people what credentials they have.
- mananaysiempre 5y ago
  My inner social psychologist, shameless amateur that he is, is not at all ready to pronounce the syntax to be the problem with nearly as much confidence as you do. As far as I can tell, the only languages with Haskell-like syntax that have tried for serious industry adoption are Haskell, Scala, and perhaps Elm. (Idris is a borderline case, but it’s young and in any case I think we’re still a couple generations away from viable total languages.) Each of these has unconventional and similar semantics, different but complex type systems, and is trying for general applicability, while Nix has somewhat different semantics and no static type system at all, and is also trying to cover a very limited application area. Even Nix’s syntax, to my eye, is about as ML-like as it is Haskell-like. How can we be so sure it’s the syntax, specifically, that is the problem? Are we controlling for these differences in any way at all? It would be another matter if F# or OCaml or even Dylan was a runaway success while Haskell was not; while strict vs lazy is a hell of a difference I could be convinced that the syntax is the problem if people from the industry tried one after the other and consistently backed off in disgust, but that is not happening as far as I can tell. I really don’t see how the verdict here could be anything but a definite “inconclusive”. Finally, I’m also not seeing why I want industry acceptance. (I don’t think Xe’s post discusses it at all.) I want to use it, I want other users to discuss it with, I want it not to die a slow unmaintained death in five to ten years, but otherwise... Meh? Advocating it to a single organization seems like a limited task (which I might fail), but advocating it to “the industry” seems like arguing with a force of nature (and I will fail). There would be some advantages to me if it were adopted, but then again it’s a first-generation system that has already accumulated substantial legacy cruft, so maybe I don’t want it to be adopted as it is now? Exploring the solution space? Definitely. Adoption at this particular stage? Not really sure, hard to get worked up about it. P.S. >> even “I don’t think it looks pretty” would afford more respect on my part > My opinion on Haskell syntax, and whether or not you respect my opinion, is also pretty much irrelevant [...] Wrong kind of “respect”, sorry: not how much I trust it, but how much concrete information I can expect to squeeze out of it (complete trust helpful, but neither necessary not sufficient). Opinions of large groups of people, even if reliably known, are notoriously hard to turn into actionable insights.

lelanthran 5y ago

> If you want to argue against the semantics, by all means, but “industry doesn’t think it looks pretty” does not cut it I'm not arguing against semantics, and "the industry doesn't think it looks pretty" is not my argument either. My argument is that, if you want the industry to accept something, it needs to be acceptable to the industry. Haskell-ish syntax[1] has clearly been unacceptable to the industry for a long time. It's been rejected, again and again. At this point, it is pretty much guaranteed that attaching Haskell syntax to your new config format/language/application/whatever is a recipe for failure. It's not that the industry just thinks it looks ugly, it's that the industry has outright rejected how it looks. > even “I don’t think it looks pretty” would afford more respect on my part My opinion on Haskell syntax, and whether or not you respect my opinion, is also pretty much irrelevant if the industry has already rejected it. I could be thinking that it's the best thing since sliced Jesus, but that won't change the fact that the syntax of Haskell has been rejected by the industry. [1] Amongst others.

nix23 5y ago
>has clearly been unacceptable to the industry for a long time. What?? Galois, Facebook, IBM, Twitter, AT&T, Bank of America, Barclays Capital, NVIDIA, Microsoft and GitHub use Haskell. https://wiki.haskell.org/Haskell_in_industry https://wiki.haskell.org/Haskell_in_industry
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > What?? Galois, Facebook, IBM, Twitter, AT&T, Bank of America, Barclays Capital, NVIDIA, Microsoft and GitHub use Haskell. So? The usage of Haskell within the entire industry is so small it's not even a rounding error. It's hard to make the argument that the industry has accepted it when the industry usage is too tiny to even measure properly.
  - physPop 5y ago
    Please define "the industry" and explain what credentials you have to know what "they" want.
    - lelanthran 5y ago
      > Please define "the industry" Programmers, and the work they do. > and explain what credentials you have to know what "they" want. It sounds ridiculous that you need "credentials" before you'd believe that Javascript, Python, Java or C# programmers, programs, projects and work doesn't each outnumber Haskell roughly 100 to 1. Just about any metric you choose to use to evaluate what the industry uses, Haskell has so little usage that it's literally difficult to measure. Job postings, TIOBE, RedMonk, SO survey, google-fight, you name it - Haskell is nowhere near rounding error percentages. Maybe you should ask yourself why it doesn't show up in significant numbers on any metric rather than asking people what credentials they have.
mananaysiempre 5y ago
My inner social psychologist, shameless amateur that he is, is not at all ready to pronounce the syntax to be the problem with nearly as much confidence as you do. As far as I can tell, the only languages with Haskell-like syntax that have tried for serious industry adoption are Haskell, Scala, and perhaps Elm. (Idris is a borderline case, but it’s young and in any case I think we’re still a couple generations away from viable total languages.) Each of these has unconventional and similar semantics, different but complex type systems, and is trying for general applicability, while Nix has somewhat different semantics and no static type system at all, and is also trying to cover a very limited application area. Even Nix’s syntax, to my eye, is about as ML-like as it is Haskell-like. How can we be so sure it’s the syntax, specifically, that is the problem? Are we controlling for these differences in any way at all? It would be another matter if F# or OCaml or even Dylan was a runaway success while Haskell was not; while strict vs lazy is a hell of a difference I could be convinced that the syntax is the problem if people from the industry tried one after the other and consistently backed off in disgust, but that is not happening as far as I can tell. I really don’t see how the verdict here could be anything but a definite “inconclusive”. Finally, I’m also not seeing why I want industry acceptance. (I don’t think Xe’s post discusses it at all.) I want to use it, I want other users to discuss it with, I want it not to die a slow unmaintained death in five to ten years, but otherwise... Meh? Advocating it to a single organization seems like a limited task (which I might fail), but advocating it to “the industry” seems like arguing with a force of nature (and I will fail). There would be some advantages to me if it were adopted, but then again it’s a first-generation system that has already accumulated substantial legacy cruft, so maybe I don’t want it to be adopted as it is now? Exploring the solution space? Definitely. Adoption at this particular stage? Not really sure, hard to get worked up about it. P.S. >> even “I don’t think it looks pretty” would afford more respect on my part > My opinion on Haskell syntax, and whether or not you respect my opinion, is also pretty much irrelevant [...] Wrong kind of “respect”, sorry: not how much I trust it, but how much concrete information I can expect to squeeze out of it (complete trust helpful, but neither necessary not sufficient). Opinions of large groups of people, even if reliably known, are notoriously hard to turn into actionable insights.