3 ms·

The first time I encountered FP was in an undergraduate PL class. I remember how easy it was to use, how beautiful the language was, and how many cool things co

The first time I encountered FP was in an undergraduate PL class. I remember how easy it was to use, how beautiful the language was, and how many cool things could be done with it that were utterly foreign to Java at the time. I remember the thought: "Functional languages are so cool. It's too bad that you can't use them for anything serious." I guess this was a case of the cage door being swung open and the monkey staying inside.

jhancock 18y ago
I predict that in 2 to 3 years, there will be several accessible web frameworks in erlang, scala, and maybe even haskell. Yes, there are frameworks for them now, but they are not "accessible" to the masses yet. This will change and good programmers will have all the readability they need for quick web dev as well as the power and safety of more advanced language features. As much as I like merb, I would like it _much_ better if it was in erlang or scala. lift, erlyweb, mochiweb, etc are still not at the ease of use level of the ruby frameworks. There will be a tipping point, I hope ;).
- gaius 18y ago
  F#, don't forget. It has the backing of a major industry player and access to all of the .NET libraries and tools already.
  - seertaak 18y ago
    Plus it's based on ML, which, while possessing a few wrinkles and warts, is a very pragmatic language.
    - silentbicycle 18y ago
      Don't forget OCaml, for that matter.
      - seertaak 18y ago
        Agreed; in fact I've that's the only ML I've tried! What I don't like about it is the standard library; compared to Haskell's it feels so obtuse. Actually I think Haskell's standard library is pretty friggin' awesome. Everything is where it should be, functionality is well documented, the names are succinct but clear. It's a joy to use.
        silentbicycle 18y ago
        > [the standard library is] so obtuse Agreed, strongly. Look at extlib ( http://code.google.com/p/ocaml-extlib/ http://code.google.com/p/ocaml-extlib/ ) and such, though. While OCaml's official standard library has some infuriating gaps, the unofficial standard library makes up for many of them (and the core language is quite good).
- tphyahoo 18y ago
  I am trying to make happs, a haskell web framework, more accessible to the masses: http://www.happstutorial.com http://www.happstutorial.com
seertaak 18y ago
I totally agree. We learned Miranda, which is similar to Haskell. Had we learned Haskell and the lecturer had pointed us to its FFI (which is a real joy to use, similar in ease-of-use to the lisp FFIs -- much easier than the java JNI [although JNA goes a long way towards alleviating JNI pain]), things probably would have been very different. I mean, the first real programming I did was with logo. Why was it fun? Because the it resulted in pretty pictures and animations. When I started programming pascal, C, and assembler, it was 320x200x256 graphics that made it fun (that and TSRs). Programs need to do something to be exciting. Sorting lists and building trees is certainly interesting, but doesn't inspire that "I need to figure out how they did that" feeling that every programmer my age will have felt when he/she first saw Doom or Wolfenstein, or in my case, Strike Commander.

jhancock 18y ago

I predict that in 2 to 3 years, there will be several accessible web frameworks in erlang, scala, and maybe even haskell. Yes, there are frameworks for them now, but they are not "accessible" to the masses yet. This will change and good programmers will have all the readability they need for quick web dev as well as the power and safety of more advanced language features. As much as I like merb, I would like it _much_ better if it was in erlang or scala. lift, erlyweb, mochiweb, etc are still not at the ease of use level of the ruby frameworks. There will be a tipping point, I hope ;).

gaius 18y ago
F#, don't forget. It has the backing of a major industry player and access to all of the .NET libraries and tools already.
- seertaak 18y ago
  Plus it's based on ML, which, while possessing a few wrinkles and warts, is a very pragmatic language.
  - silentbicycle 18y ago
    Don't forget OCaml, for that matter.
    - seertaak 18y ago
      Agreed; in fact I've that's the only ML I've tried! What I don't like about it is the standard library; compared to Haskell's it feels so obtuse. Actually I think Haskell's standard library is pretty friggin' awesome. Everything is where it should be, functionality is well documented, the names are succinct but clear. It's a joy to use.
      - silentbicycle 18y ago
        > [the standard library is] so obtuse Agreed, strongly. Look at extlib ( http://code.google.com/p/ocaml-extlib/ http://code.google.com/p/ocaml-extlib/ ) and such, though. While OCaml's official standard library has some infuriating gaps, the unofficial standard library makes up for many of them (and the core language is quite good).
tphyahoo 18y ago
I am trying to make happs, a haskell web framework, more accessible to the masses: http://www.happstutorial.com http://www.happstutorial.com

seertaak 18y ago

I totally agree. We learned Miranda, which is similar to Haskell. Had we learned Haskell and the lecturer had pointed us to its FFI (which is a real joy to use, similar in ease-of-use to the lisp FFIs -- much easier than the java JNI [although JNA goes a long way towards alleviating JNI pain]), things probably would have been very different. I mean, the first real programming I did was with logo. Why was it fun? Because the it resulted in pretty pictures and animations. When I started programming pascal, C, and assembler, it was 320x200x256 graphics that made it fun (that and TSRs). Programs need to do something to be exciting. Sorting lists and building trees is certainly interesting, but doesn't inspire that "I need to figure out how they did that" feeling that every programmer my age will have felt when he/she first saw Doom or Wolfenstein, or in my case, Strike Commander.