4 ms·
The "blub" argument fairly applies just as much to Lisp as it does to, e.g., Java. For example, (any dialect of) Lisp is my blub language, as I understand Lisp
by gcv 17y ago
The "blub" argument fairly applies just as much to Lisp as it does to, e.g., Java. For example, (any dialect of) Lisp is my blub language, as I understand Lisp quite well. I do not understand Haskell to anywhere near the same extent. I've tried to learn it several times, but monad transformers consistently make my eyes glaze over. I am perfectly comfortable admitting this, and I intend to try harder to understand programming language concepts with which I am unfamiliar, rather than write off Haskell advocates as condescending.
- silentbicycle 17y agoI get what you're saying, but I think dropping the "blub" term would make everybody better off. Using "blub" intrinsically frames the conversation in terms of one language being "the stupid one used by the stupid people", and that's likely to be counterproductive. The word always has that baggage. It's not a linear continuum, with some "most powerful language" at the top. Different styles of languages have different strong points and weak points.
- bitwize 17y agoI think monad transformers are starting to do Haskellers up in knots, especially when there are many types of computations you want to do which are by necessity monadic in Haskell. I, for one, find uniqueness types to be an easier to understand and use solution to the problem of maintaining referential transparency in the face of a stateful universe.