4 ms·

> Haskell in Production Does not use Haskell. Is it just me or is this... weird?

by boxed 4y ago

gorjusborg 4y ago
Should probably be 'Dialect of Haskell in Production'
tuukkah 4y ago
Sure, it's a bit weird but not that weird as they have a huge codebase in a specific domain. Also, they still end up using a lot of Haskell code (and semantics) although they write in a thin layer of "DSL" on top of Haskell and GHC (which itself is a lot of "Haskell in production"). > Mu has a strict runtime, which makes program performance easier to analyse and predict – but prevents us from just copy-pasting some Haskell libraries that rely crucially on lazy evaluation.
- boxed 4y ago
  From what I understood they don't use Haskell underneath at all, but they copy paste code from Haskell and sometimes have to modify it.
  - tuukkah 4y ago
    They say their codebase includes 400k lines of Haskell code (plus 4.5M lines of Mu). Also, they use GHC which is a huge Haskell program, and they customize it with their own extensions etc. As they copy Haskell library code and only sometimes modify it, I would count it as Haskell code until they modify it.
yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
Mu is essentially Haskell. It's not clear to me where you got "does not use Haskell" from.
- boxed 4y ago
  It's quite clearly different in many important ways. Not being lazy is a pretty huge one!
  - yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
    Ok, but we're not quite talking about the difference between Haskell and Clojure, for example.
    - boxed 4y ago
      Sure. But it is almost the difference between Haskell and OCaml.
      - yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
        I suppose it's all relative. Given some selection of enabled language extensions, are you still writing Haskell? I think in the minds of most people (at least on this forum) the difference is academic. Whether a given body of work in Haskell looks like Elm, or if it's all GADTs, data kinds, and type families, they'd both be met with "Surely nobody actually uses this in production! This is ivory tower nonsense! I can't read it! It's not practical! I just want to get stuff done!" ad infinitum.
koromak 4y ago
I write TypeScript in production but I'm happy to call it JS

> Haskell in Production Does not use Haskell. Is it just me or is this... weird?

by boxed 4y ago

> Haskell in Production Does not use Haskell. Is it just me or is this... weird?

gorjusborg 4y ago

Should probably be 'Dialect of Haskell in Production'

tuukkah 4y ago

Sure, it's a bit weird but not that weird as they have a huge codebase in a specific domain. Also, they still end up using a lot of Haskell code (and semantics) although they write in a thin layer of "DSL" on top of Haskell and GHC (which itself is a lot of "Haskell in production"). > Mu has a strict runtime, which makes program performance easier to analyse and predict – but prevents us from just copy-pasting some Haskell libraries that rely crucially on lazy evaluation.

boxed 4y ago
From what I understood they don't use Haskell underneath at all, but they copy paste code from Haskell and sometimes have to modify it.
- tuukkah 4y ago
  They say their codebase includes 400k lines of Haskell code (plus 4.5M lines of Mu). Also, they use GHC which is a huge Haskell program, and they customize it with their own extensions etc. As they copy Haskell library code and only sometimes modify it, I would count it as Haskell code until they modify it.

yakshaving_jgt 4y ago

Mu is essentially Haskell. It's not clear to me where you got "does not use Haskell" from.

boxed 4y ago
It's quite clearly different in many important ways. Not being lazy is a pretty huge one!
- yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
  Ok, but we're not quite talking about the difference between Haskell and Clojure, for example.
  - boxed 4y ago
    Sure. But it is almost the difference between Haskell and OCaml.
    - yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
      I suppose it's all relative. Given some selection of enabled language extensions, are you still writing Haskell? I think in the minds of most people (at least on this forum) the difference is academic. Whether a given body of work in Haskell looks like Elm, or if it's all GADTs, data kinds, and type families, they'd both be met with "Surely nobody actually uses this in production! This is ivory tower nonsense! I can't read it! It's not practical! I just want to get stuff done!" ad infinitum.

koromak 4y ago

I write TypeScript in production but I'm happy to call it JS