3 ms·

Certainly wasn't intended to be a personal attack. I'm not claiming that I don't test my ideas, I'm claiming that I do so in a different way. Rather than testin

Certainly wasn't intended to be a personal attack. I'm not claiming that I don't test my ideas, I'm claiming that I do so in a different way. Rather than testing ideas by running the program, I test my ideas by type checking it.

taeric 13y ago
Most of my ideas I first test by a simple sketch of boxes up on a whiteboard. Going from there to some toy code to try out what I suspect are the tough parts of those boxes. I realize with liberal use of undefined, I can get something similar in Haskel. So, I am not trying to claim in precludes this behavior. Just claiming that it is a rather drastic change to the flow many people are used to. And really, I don't like claiming many people are used to this. As, I can really only speak for myself.
- nbouscal 13y ago
  I don't think they're quite as different as you think, but, it sounds like we agree. Two different ways of doing the same thing. To me, being different from what most people in software engineering are used to really doesn't sound so bad, judging from our industry's track record.
  - taeric 13y ago
    Oh, I definitely agree with that. And don't get me wrong, I actually want to learn and use Haskel somewhere. I just get wary whenever I see the conversation leaning towards indications that it is a clear win. Seems like it is a qualified win. Too many of the stories read more like your typical "developer learns new way of thinking, becomes better for it." Which is ultimately what makes it so frustrating. When someone learns lisp and becomes a better programmer. There isn't much for them to say, other than "learning to think the lisp way has helped me be a better coder." There are those that get hung up on the metaprograming of lisp. Which is amazing. But, for the most part you can do that elsewhere now. The only thing left is it really is a frame of thinking. Contrast this with Haskel. Few stories focus on how it helped them see a more comprehensive view of types. Instead, the talk turns to how Haskel is a saving grace that the unwashed masses just isn't used to.

taeric 13y ago

Most of my ideas I first test by a simple sketch of boxes up on a whiteboard. Going from there to some toy code to try out what I suspect are the tough parts of those boxes. I realize with liberal use of undefined, I can get something similar in Haskel. So, I am not trying to claim in precludes this behavior. Just claiming that it is a rather drastic change to the flow many people are used to. And really, I don't like claiming many people are used to this. As, I can really only speak for myself.

nbouscal 13y ago
I don't think they're quite as different as you think, but, it sounds like we agree. Two different ways of doing the same thing. To me, being different from what most people in software engineering are used to really doesn't sound so bad, judging from our industry's track record.
- taeric 13y ago
  Oh, I definitely agree with that. And don't get me wrong, I actually want to learn and use Haskel somewhere. I just get wary whenever I see the conversation leaning towards indications that it is a clear win. Seems like it is a qualified win. Too many of the stories read more like your typical "developer learns new way of thinking, becomes better for it." Which is ultimately what makes it so frustrating. When someone learns lisp and becomes a better programmer. There isn't much for them to say, other than "learning to think the lisp way has helped me be a better coder." There are those that get hung up on the metaprograming of lisp. Which is amazing. But, for the most part you can do that elsewhere now. The only thing left is it really is a frame of thinking. Contrast this with Haskel. Few stories focus on how it helped them see a more comprehensive view of types. Instead, the talk turns to how Haskel is a saving grace that the unwashed masses just isn't used to.