7 ms·

Rather than writing blog articles... Why not do both? Preaching the Good Word can go hand-in-hand with practicing it.

• tptacek 18y ago
  Because you're spending credibility.
  • intoverflow 18y ago
    This isn't a "spending credibility" situation. Credibility is something you need when you're asking someone to believe something based on your authority. In this case, I wrote an article filled with links with the hope that the reader could evaluate the claim based on that material. Besides, I don't think I should need to spend all of my waking time coding; I already spend several hours a day doing that. Why can't I take a break to argue that Haskell's tools make the language more production focused than most people realize?
    • brl 18y ago
      In your article you claim that Haskell enables 'people to write sophisticated programs in less time and with greater reliability.' Am I out of line to expect some sophisticated Haskell programs to exist before taking this claim seriously?
      • wernerv0nbraun 18y ago
        how about an operating system (house) a window manager (xmonad) and fully featured dvcs (darcs) or another (camp)? is there as much haskell out there as c, perl, python? no. but if you want to be a pioneer you have to drive on a little dirt. but don't worry, we'll keep plugging away and in no time at all the haskell highway will be lined with HoJos and rest stops and miles of flat-top...we'll send you a postcard.
        • anamax 18y ago
          > how about an operating system (house) a window manager (xmonad) and fully featured dvcs (darcs) or another (camp)? How about not. Languages get adopted because they make new things possible/easier, not because they're good for re-inventing the wheel.
          • silentbicycle 18y ago
            Darcs, at least, broke new ground. It was a very innovative VCS. I'm not sure about which features originated in dwm vs. xmonad (there seems to be cross-pollination of ideas between the two, so that's a good thing either way), and I haven't used house or camp.
            • anamax 18y ago
              > Darcs, at least, broke new ground. It was a very innovative VCS. Innovative does not mean valuable, or, more important, popular. I proposed the theory that languages become popular because they make creating new things possible and/or easier. If Darcs qualifies as such a new thing, the fact that it didn't help popularize haskell argues against my theory. Maybe my theory is wrong. (I'd certainly patch it in certain ways.) Maybe Darcs doesn't qualify. Maybe Darcs didn't do the trick because no one knows about it. So, let's flip the question. What has the Haskell community done that has been important in making other languages popular in the past? If they're not doing any of those things, why should Haskell nevertheless become popular? (Note that lots of "superior" languages never became popular, so if you're going that route, you get to explain why Haskell will be different.)
              • wernerv0nbraun 18y ago
                i'm not sure i even understand what your problem is, you seem to be setting up false dichotomies and cryptic, impossible standards for success. so you don't like/won't use haskell because darcs is not the world's most popular dvcs? well git is also more popular than hg, so i guess that rules out using python for you, doesn't it? So, let's flip the question. What has the Haskell community done that has been important in making other languages popular in the past ??? so you're now asking why the haskell community isn't contributing to another language??? i don't even understand your points, they are nonsensical. what does the java community do for python? what do c++ coders do for erlang? if you don't like or want to use haskell, fine, no one really cares. just stop making up illogical arguments as to why it apparently cannot be used