5 ms·

In the context of web applications, what do Haskell or Clojure bring to the table that makes them worth the learning curve?

by doktrin 12y ago

eru 12y ago
In the context of noname123's post they bring interesting learning to the table: they are not more of the same with renamed keywords. To quote, > [...] it's not like learning music and digging into a deeper discipline like moving from acoustic strumming to jazz improvisation, it's just learning new keywords to do the same crap because the old keywords have been remapped. Haskell _is_ digging deeper into the discipline. I am sure one can make good arguments for some of the Haskell and Clojure frameworks for web applications. Alas, I am not qualified. I only used Haskell professionally for embedded development, and for rapid desktop application development, but I've never done web development seriously. In any case, the Haskell answer for web development will probably include what all Haskell advocacy ever includes: purity and the strong static typing.
- chrisdew 12y ago
  How do you Haskell on embedded systems? Are you talking about baremetal with 1-32K SRAM?
  - eru 12y ago
    No, not nearly that baremetal. I was talking about control processes running in dom0 of xen. They are embedded in the sense that there are `no user serviceable parts'. (I just looked up embedded software on Wikipedia; it seems like the traditional use of the term is very different to how I used it here. Please pardon the confusion.)
  - sanderjd 12y ago
    To take this thread yet further into self-parody, you might like Rust; it borrows some interesting stuff from Haskell (or really, the ML family), but is actively targeting embedded systems. Edit: Also, I have heard that Ocaml can be made to work pretty nicely in an embedded environment.
    - eru 12y ago
      You can make OCaml (and Haskell) run on Xen, no need for a full blown operating system. (Not sure if that counts for anything.) The OCaml project for that is called mirage.
Ixiaus 12y ago
Ignoring the joy of writing software with much more powerful abstractions for a moment (Python, Ruby, JS, PHP all look like jalopies now compared to Haskell) out has very real industrial benefits: Write software faster with fewer bugs, easier to maintain down the road because the "mental model" is maintained in the types by the compiler, it's more succinct, it's fast, some of the world's brightest computer scientists work on it, and so on...
- 59nadir 12y ago
  > Ignoring the joy of writing software with much more powerful abstractions for a moment (Python, Ruby, JS, PHP all look like jalopies now compared to Haskell) Just out of curiosity: Which abstractions are we talking about here that Haskell doesn't have? OO?
  - dasil003 12y ago
    I believe he meant Haskell's abstractions are more powerful.
  - Ixiaus 12y ago
    I didn't write that sentence very well if that's how it was interpreted, sorry. I meant to say that the abstractions available to Haskell are more powerful. I can't really think of any abstraction that's not available to it - even an Object System is possible in Haskell, it just wouldn't be as easy to use as Monads are.
    - eru 12y ago
      > I can't really think of any abstraction that's not available to it [...] Dependent typing doesn't work very well in Haskell (yet).
- doktrin 12y ago
  Thanks for your response. I'd like to dive a little deeper into the basis for these claims. My current stance is that there isn't sufficient reason to adopt Haskell for use in production. > Write software faster with fewer bugs Is there an evidentiary basis for the 'fewer bugs' claim? What type of software are people writing faster with Haskell? >> easier to maintain down the road because the "mental model" is maintained in the types by the compiler That seems fair. >> it's more succinct, it's fast In isolation, that's a bit hand wavy IMO. >> some of the world's brightest computer scientists work on it This is something I hear quite often from the Haskell community in particular. It may or may not be true, but it gets repeated far too often IMHO. It feels like a bit of an appeal to authority.

In the context of web applications, what do Haskell or Clojure bring to the table that makes them worth the learning curve?

by doktrin 12y ago

In the context of web applications, what do Haskell or Clojure bring to the table that makes them worth the learning curve?

eru 12y ago

In the context of noname123's post they bring interesting learning to the table: they are not more of the same with renamed keywords. To quote, > [...] it's not like learning music and digging into a deeper discipline like moving from acoustic strumming to jazz improvisation, it's just learning new keywords to do the same crap because the old keywords have been remapped. Haskell _is_ digging deeper into the discipline. I am sure one can make good arguments for some of the Haskell and Clojure frameworks for web applications. Alas, I am not qualified. I only used Haskell professionally for embedded development, and for rapid desktop application development, but I've never done web development seriously. In any case, the Haskell answer for web development will probably include what all Haskell advocacy ever includes: purity and the strong static typing.

chrisdew 12y ago
How do you Haskell on embedded systems? Are you talking about baremetal with 1-32K SRAM?
- eru 12y ago
  No, not nearly that baremetal. I was talking about control processes running in dom0 of xen. They are embedded in the sense that there are `no user serviceable parts'. (I just looked up embedded software on Wikipedia; it seems like the traditional use of the term is very different to how I used it here. Please pardon the confusion.)
- sanderjd 12y ago
  To take this thread yet further into self-parody, you might like Rust; it borrows some interesting stuff from Haskell (or really, the ML family), but is actively targeting embedded systems. Edit: Also, I have heard that Ocaml can be made to work pretty nicely in an embedded environment.
  - eru 12y ago
    You can make OCaml (and Haskell) run on Xen, no need for a full blown operating system. (Not sure if that counts for anything.) The OCaml project for that is called mirage.

Ixiaus 12y ago

Ignoring the joy of writing software with much more powerful abstractions for a moment (Python, Ruby, JS, PHP all look like jalopies now compared to Haskell) out has very real industrial benefits: Write software faster with fewer bugs, easier to maintain down the road because the "mental model" is maintained in the types by the compiler, it's more succinct, it's fast, some of the world's brightest computer scientists work on it, and so on...

59nadir 12y ago
> Ignoring the joy of writing software with much more powerful abstractions for a moment (Python, Ruby, JS, PHP all look like jalopies now compared to Haskell) Just out of curiosity: Which abstractions are we talking about here that Haskell doesn't have? OO?
- dasil003 12y ago
  I believe he meant Haskell's abstractions are more powerful.
- Ixiaus 12y ago
  I didn't write that sentence very well if that's how it was interpreted, sorry. I meant to say that the abstractions available to Haskell are more powerful. I can't really think of any abstraction that's not available to it - even an Object System is possible in Haskell, it just wouldn't be as easy to use as Monads are.
  - eru 12y ago
    > I can't really think of any abstraction that's not available to it [...] Dependent typing doesn't work very well in Haskell (yet).
doktrin 12y ago
Thanks for your response. I'd like to dive a little deeper into the basis for these claims. My current stance is that there isn't sufficient reason to adopt Haskell for use in production. > Write software faster with fewer bugs Is there an evidentiary basis for the 'fewer bugs' claim? What type of software are people writing faster with Haskell? >> easier to maintain down the road because the "mental model" is maintained in the types by the compiler That seems fair. >> it's more succinct, it's fast In isolation, that's a bit hand wavy IMO. >> some of the world's brightest computer scientists work on it This is something I hear quite often from the Haskell community in particular. It may or may not be true, but it gets repeated far too often IMHO. It feels like a bit of an appeal to authority.