3 ms·

Does that affect the validity of his arguments? I would be more sympathetic except that I am constantly seeing a certain subset of Haskell programmers engaged

Does that affect the validity of his arguments? I would be more sympathetic except that I am constantly seeing a certain subset of Haskell programmers engaged in the same kind of advocacy. Should they all disclose a conflict of interest because they like Haskell?

thirsteh 14y ago
If they contributed to the Haskell type system and they are commenting on the inferiority of the type systems of other languages, absolutely yes. This is far from his first Haskell-bashing exercise. Take a look at the Wikipedia page for Haskell: "Robert Harper, using Standard ML to teach introductory programming, has given his reasons for not using Haskell. Among these are the difficulty of reasoning about resource usage with non-strict evaluation, that laziness complicates the definition of data types and inductive reasoning,[49]and the "inferiority" of Haskell's class system compared to ML's module system.[50]" I'm not saying his arguments aren't valid. It's just curious that he's not attacking SML with the same vitriol, and perhaps people would like to know why.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  I don't see how he is obligated to attack anything else with the same vitriol, if he doesn't see the same problems with it. It seems that we might just as well try to declare a moratorium on Haskell programmers' bashing of other languages on the basis that those other languages are not type-safe enough. Any time someone bashes $FAVORITE, I can just disclose to everyone that they are a ${FAVORITE}-basher and therefore aren't speaking credibly. Hooray!
  - thirsteh 14y ago
    Surely you don't believe that SML doesn't have its own set of issues? My point is he doesn't criticize SML in the same manner on any issue, for a very good reason: he helped design the language.
    - sanxiyn 14y ago
      I believe SML doesn't have any issue that Robert Harper cares about. It is nearly perfect in all things Robert Harper cares about. Are you suggesting that Robert Harper should care about more things than what he currently cares about? I disagree with your opinion that he doesn't criticize SML because he was involved in the design. SML is not perfect, but Robert Harper does not criticize SML because SML is Robert-Harper-perfect. Or nearly so.
      - thirsteh 14y ago
        What's your point?
        sanxiyn 14y ago
        My point is that you are seeing an ulterior motive where I don't see any.
- _delirium 14y ago
  I think in Harper's case he really does believe SML does it The Right Way, rather than promoting SML for ulterior/career reasons. His opinion on that subject isn't shared by many, but I think it's a genuinely held opinion. He just has very particular views on how type systems should be, and tends to overstate his views (e.g. treating questions reasonable people can disagree over as if he were stating unarguable facts).
fusiongyro 14y ago
> Does that affect the validity of his arguments? His argument can be valid and still be pointless for 99% of people. Granted we all must make these decisions for ourselves, but if someone smirks and says "screw Haskell" because the exception system is unsound and then goes back to using Perl or Java, they have missed the point. > I would be more sympathetic except that I am constantly seeing a certain subset of Haskell programmers engaged in the same kind of advocacy. Should they all disclose a conflict of interest because they like Haskell? If you see someone engage in misleading advocacy you should call them out for it. A big problem with Haskell is that it is so weird and different that new users are always blogging about how great it is. When they make a small realization they blog it, and their misconceptions come along with it. I've been using Haskell for a while, and I find it very hard to stomach it when this happens, so I don't usually follow the comments closely when I see it happen. I doubt I'm alone in that. But there's a world of difference between newbie love babble and a calculated PR stunt by a PL expert.
cantankerous 14y ago
One can craft an entire argument that's valid and still complete BS. Politicians do it every day. You should be asking if his arguments are sound given adequate context and background information. Harper is most definitely biased against Haskell as evidenced by criticisms of his examples and how he plugs SML. Given this, the facts and examples he provides on Haskell shouldn't be taken at face value. Valid arguments are easy to spot. Sound ones are not.

thirsteh 14y ago

If they contributed to the Haskell type system and they are commenting on the inferiority of the type systems of other languages, absolutely yes. This is far from his first Haskell-bashing exercise. Take a look at the Wikipedia page for Haskell: "Robert Harper, using Standard ML to teach introductory programming, has given his reasons for not using Haskell. Among these are the difficulty of reasoning about resource usage with non-strict evaluation, that laziness complicates the definition of data types and inductive reasoning,[49]and the "inferiority" of Haskell's class system compared to ML's module system.[50]" I'm not saying his arguments aren't valid. It's just curious that he's not attacking SML with the same vitriol, and perhaps people would like to know why.

slurgfest 14y ago
I don't see how he is obligated to attack anything else with the same vitriol, if he doesn't see the same problems with it. It seems that we might just as well try to declare a moratorium on Haskell programmers' bashing of other languages on the basis that those other languages are not type-safe enough. Any time someone bashes $FAVORITE, I can just disclose to everyone that they are a ${FAVORITE}-basher and therefore aren't speaking credibly. Hooray!
- thirsteh 14y ago
  Surely you don't believe that SML doesn't have its own set of issues? My point is he doesn't criticize SML in the same manner on any issue, for a very good reason: he helped design the language.
  - sanxiyn 14y ago
    I believe SML doesn't have any issue that Robert Harper cares about. It is nearly perfect in all things Robert Harper cares about. Are you suggesting that Robert Harper should care about more things than what he currently cares about? I disagree with your opinion that he doesn't criticize SML because he was involved in the design. SML is not perfect, but Robert Harper does not criticize SML because SML is Robert-Harper-perfect. Or nearly so.
    - thirsteh 14y ago
      What's your point?
      - sanxiyn 14y ago
        My point is that you are seeing an ulterior motive where I don't see any.
_delirium 14y ago
I think in Harper's case he really does believe SML does it The Right Way, rather than promoting SML for ulterior/career reasons. His opinion on that subject isn't shared by many, but I think it's a genuinely held opinion. He just has very particular views on how type systems should be, and tends to overstate his views (e.g. treating questions reasonable people can disagree over as if he were stating unarguable facts).

fusiongyro 14y ago

> Does that affect the validity of his arguments? His argument can be valid and still be pointless for 99% of people. Granted we all must make these decisions for ourselves, but if someone smirks and says "screw Haskell" because the exception system is unsound and then goes back to using Perl or Java, they have missed the point. > I would be more sympathetic except that I am constantly seeing a certain subset of Haskell programmers engaged in the same kind of advocacy. Should they all disclose a conflict of interest because they like Haskell? If you see someone engage in misleading advocacy you should call them out for it. A big problem with Haskell is that it is so weird and different that new users are always blogging about how great it is. When they make a small realization they blog it, and their misconceptions come along with it. I've been using Haskell for a while, and I find it very hard to stomach it when this happens, so I don't usually follow the comments closely when I see it happen. I doubt I'm alone in that. But there's a world of difference between newbie love babble and a calculated PR stunt by a PL expert.

cantankerous 14y ago

One can craft an entire argument that's valid and still complete BS. Politicians do it every day. You should be asking if his arguments are sound given adequate context and background information. Harper is most definitely biased against Haskell as evidenced by criticisms of his examples and how he plugs SML. Given this, the facts and examples he provides on Haskell shouldn't be taken at face value. Valid arguments are easy to spot. Sound ones are not.