4 ms·

I think your reply is inappropriately negative ("circle-jerk", "real world"), and that the negatively of your post detracts from what value might be derived fro

I think your reply is inappropriately negative ("circle-jerk", "real world"), and that the negatively of your post detracts from what value might be derived from the article. The author of the post provided an amusing example of a case where he posits the type system is sufficient and valuable. He didn't claim that the type system would be sufficient for a complete real-world application.

weeksie 14y ago
Well, I guess I'm just old enough and ugly enough to call things like I see them. Haskell is a neat language, but it is frustrating to listen to these sorts of brag-posts about the language because they're filled with dangerous hubris. The type system is amazing for certain kinds of problems. Hey, if you're writing a compiler then Haskell is probably the best language out there. Or in memory data structures. Hm. Or parsers. . . . It's a great language for CS research. The term "real world" is not meant to slur, it's meant to be accurate. I've shipped code written in Haskell and I deeply understand the huge pain in the arse it is to use in production for applications that are not toys.
- Cieplak 14y ago
  Can you share some examples where you've found it to be a huge pain in the arse to use in production?
- tikhonj 14y ago
  "Dangerous hubris" is an extremely condescending phrase. Do you think the author does not realize that the type system is only sufficient in certain, very specific cases? That's exactly what he mentions at the very end--the reason he trusted the type system so much is only because he believes there is only one non-trivial, non-recursive implementation with the requisite types. He qualifies exactly what he means and, moreover, does not even defend his behavior. And that is "dangerous hubris"? Also, there is certainly plenty of real-world code I would not like to write with Haskell--drivers, for example. However, it seems great for web-apps, which are very "real world" and, naturally, very important on HN. In my personal experience, it's also surprisingly good for quick command-line scripts in place of Bash or Perl. Writing small scripts for automation and command-line clients for my existing tools was as easy or easier in Haskell than in any other language I've used.
- ozataman 14y ago
  Sorry to burst your bubble, but I wonder if your experience is clouded by the (past) inadequacy of your skill set and learning level. We use Haskell in production across a number of domains and it has produced solid results. So do a number of other very serious companies out there (as an example, most banks have varying degrees of Haskell in production for critical systems). Also, how are parsers or in-memory data structures NOT real-world tasks? You never had to parse some bit-stream or stage a sophisticated-enough computation pipeline that required lots of different, intermediate data types? I'm not sure why you're seemingly dying to make negative blanket statements based on how "it was a pain in the arse" for YOU.
- tensor 14y ago
  I don't think you realize just how condescending and full of arrogance your posts are. You are implying that computer science is both useless and only consists of implementing toys. What makes your problems "real world" and the problems that haskell is good for not "real world"? What makes something "not a toy"? Parsers and compilers are toys? If you want to start a discussion about things that make haskell difficult to work with on a daily basis, please do so. Otherwise, kindly stop throwing around insults.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  >I've shipped code written in Haskell and I deeply understand the huge pain in the arse it is to use in production for applications that are not toys. And yet plenty of people (myself included) are using haskell for real world, production, non-toy applications all the time. So either all of us people using it are mentally ill and just imagining up non-existent production haskell code, or your experience reflects your ability, not the language's capabilities.
- numeromancer 14y ago
  If you're using the term “real world”, it is extremely unlikely---like sha1 hash collision unlikely---that you are being accurate. In all cases where I can remember its being used, it's being used as a way to avoid a concrete and accurate description of fact, and to add a touch of disdain for something else.

weeksie 14y ago

Well, I guess I'm just old enough and ugly enough to call things like I see them. Haskell is a neat language, but it is frustrating to listen to these sorts of brag-posts about the language because they're filled with dangerous hubris. The type system is amazing for certain kinds of problems. Hey, if you're writing a compiler then Haskell is probably the best language out there. Or in memory data structures. Hm. Or parsers. . . . It's a great language for CS research. The term "real world" is not meant to slur, it's meant to be accurate. I've shipped code written in Haskell and I deeply understand the huge pain in the arse it is to use in production for applications that are not toys.

Cieplak 14y ago
Can you share some examples where you've found it to be a huge pain in the arse to use in production?
tikhonj 14y ago
"Dangerous hubris" is an extremely condescending phrase. Do you think the author does not realize that the type system is only sufficient in certain, very specific cases? That's exactly what he mentions at the very end--the reason he trusted the type system so much is only because he believes there is only one non-trivial, non-recursive implementation with the requisite types. He qualifies exactly what he means and, moreover, does not even defend his behavior. And that is "dangerous hubris"? Also, there is certainly plenty of real-world code I would not like to write with Haskell--drivers, for example. However, it seems great for web-apps, which are very "real world" and, naturally, very important on HN. In my personal experience, it's also surprisingly good for quick command-line scripts in place of Bash or Perl. Writing small scripts for automation and command-line clients for my existing tools was as easy or easier in Haskell than in any other language I've used.
ozataman 14y ago
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I wonder if your experience is clouded by the (past) inadequacy of your skill set and learning level. We use Haskell in production across a number of domains and it has produced solid results. So do a number of other very serious companies out there (as an example, most banks have varying degrees of Haskell in production for critical systems). Also, how are parsers or in-memory data structures NOT real-world tasks? You never had to parse some bit-stream or stage a sophisticated-enough computation pipeline that required lots of different, intermediate data types? I'm not sure why you're seemingly dying to make negative blanket statements based on how "it was a pain in the arse" for YOU.
tensor 14y ago
I don't think you realize just how condescending and full of arrogance your posts are. You are implying that computer science is both useless and only consists of implementing toys. What makes your problems "real world" and the problems that haskell is good for not "real world"? What makes something "not a toy"? Parsers and compilers are toys? If you want to start a discussion about things that make haskell difficult to work with on a daily basis, please do so. Otherwise, kindly stop throwing around insults.
papsosouid 14y ago
>I've shipped code written in Haskell and I deeply understand the huge pain in the arse it is to use in production for applications that are not toys. And yet plenty of people (myself included) are using haskell for real world, production, non-toy applications all the time. So either all of us people using it are mentally ill and just imagining up non-existent production haskell code, or your experience reflects your ability, not the language's capabilities.
numeromancer 14y ago
If you're using the term “real world”, it is extremely unlikely---like sha1 hash collision unlikely---that you are being accurate. In all cases where I can remember its being used, it's being used as a way to avoid a concrete and accurate description of fact, and to add a touch of disdain for something else.