3 ms·

I agree that using Haskell is like flying a helicopter when others use cars. However, I still strongly disagree with the choice you wrote earlier: > If you wan

by sold 14y ago

I agree that using Haskell is like flying a helicopter when others use cars. However, I still strongly disagree with the choice you wrote earlier: > If you want to use these languages, you have a choice between (a) learning the theory, and (b) not fully understanding the tool you're using. Please bear in mind HM is only a basic idea of how Haskell type system works. Current inner workings of GHC type checking are described in 80 page research paper on OutsideIn(X), http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Simonpj/Talk:OutsideIn http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Simonpj/Talk:OutsideIn. I never read more than half a page from this. Yet I can use GADTs, type families, existentials, rank-2-types and so on with no trouble. I don't think Haskellers who did not read those 80 pages are "not fully understanding the tool they're using". Why should I know theory - OutsideIn(X), HM, category theory etc., to "fully understand" the tool? Intuitive understanding gained by practice is enough.

moldbug 14y ago
Intuitive understanding gained by practice enough for you. If Haskell didn't exist, you could probably invent it. The result might even be better. Neighbor, how much code is there in the world? And how many coders as good as you? Divide these numbers, and you'll see why the world can't possibly adopt Haskell. Some people can climb Half Dome with their fingernails. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a fixed rope, too - that is, if your goal is to maximize the climbers of Half Dome. (If its goal is to separate the men from the boys, Haskell is already doing just fine and shouldn't change a thing.)
- asciilifeform 14y ago
  > how much code is there in the world? How much of that code really ought to have been written in the first place? We could have a better-functioning civilization if most people who start to suffer delusions of programming were simply given Welfare.
- sold 14y ago
  I think intuitive understanding gained by practice is enough for every programmer, not just me. Learning by programming is easier than reading research papers and digging the theory. What more, it was a prerequisite for me: I could not understand papers on type systems or category theory before I saw Haskell code. I heard similar opinions often - Haskellers learn Haskell first, can code comfortably, and only then are able to read about the theory. Theory seems hard, dull and useless at first. Even now, I feel a lot of it is cruft. The semi-official motto of Haskell is "Avoid success at any cost", not world domination. It is enough as a tool for hackers, not for everyone. Haskell expands extremely slowly, yet steadily.

by sold 14y ago

moldbug 14y ago

Intuitive understanding gained by practice enough for you. If Haskell didn't exist, you could probably invent it. The result might even be better. Neighbor, how much code is there in the world? And how many coders as good as you? Divide these numbers, and you'll see why the world can't possibly adopt Haskell. Some people can climb Half Dome with their fingernails. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a fixed rope, too - that is, if your goal is to maximize the climbers of Half Dome. (If its goal is to separate the men from the boys, Haskell is already doing just fine and shouldn't change a thing.)

asciilifeform 14y ago
> how much code is there in the world? How much of that code really ought to have been written in the first place? We could have a better-functioning civilization if most people who start to suffer delusions of programming were simply given Welfare.
sold 14y ago
I think intuitive understanding gained by practice is enough for every programmer, not just me. Learning by programming is easier than reading research papers and digging the theory. What more, it was a prerequisite for me: I could not understand papers on type systems or category theory before I saw Haskell code. I heard similar opinions often - Haskellers learn Haskell first, can code comfortably, and only then are able to read about the theory. Theory seems hard, dull and useless at first. Even now, I feel a lot of it is cruft. The semi-official motto of Haskell is "Avoid success at any cost", not world domination. It is enough as a tool for hackers, not for everyone. Haskell expands extremely slowly, yet steadily.