5 ms·

> …his impression is that there were plenty of Haskell people there that seemed to barely tolerate having any talk about Scala in the conference. It’s a confer

> …his impression is that there were plenty of Haskell people there that seemed to barely tolerate having any talk about Scala in the conference. It’s a conference about functional programming. If they believe that functional languages are better for software development than imperative languages, then they may see hybrid languages as making unnecessary and detrimental concessions. > Haskell and the like will remain used only by people that just think there's no way to write any useful program without first learning all about category theory. You’re repeating the false meme that I/O in Haskell is difficult or theoretical, and furthermore implying that learning is a bad thing.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> It’s a conference about functional programming. If they believe that functional languages are better for software development than imperative languages, then they may see hybrid languages as making unnecessary and detrimental concessions. If that kind of extremism was applied in discussion of other paradigms, we'd be excluding mention of "hybrid languages" like C++ from discussions of Object Oriented Programming.
- evincarofautumn 12y ago
  > If that kind of extremism was applied in discussion of other paradigms, we'd be excluding mention of "hybrid languages" like C++ from discussions of Object Oriented Programming. If I had mentioned exclusion, yes. C++ is mentioned at OOP conferences like ECOOP and OOPSLA as often as Scala is mentioned at FP conferences like ICFP, CUFP, and Lambdahack. But I have little doubt that a strawman proponent of a pure-OOP language such as Smalltalk—or Self or Ruby or Java or whichever language embodies the definition of OOP you prefer—would be as miffed about the use of C++ in lieu of their preferred language as hibikir’s friend’s strawman Haskeller is about Scala. And anecdotally, the top C++ developers I’ve worked with didn’t have anything good to say about object-oriented programming anyway.
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    > And anecdotally, the top C++ developers I’ve worked with didn’t have anything good to say about object-oriented programming anyway. It is hard to get a good grasp of OO in C++, if you don't experience pure OO languages, at least for some time. Multi-paradigm languages like C++ are great, but that power can work against learning a specific paradigm properly. Good program design, regardless of the paradigm requires experience and the ability to use the tools that expose paradigm best practices.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    > the top C++ developers I’ve worked with didn’t have anything good to say about object-oriented programming anyway. Which makes sense. C++'s support for OOP is pretty painful. It would be like hating functional programming because of being exposed to it in APL.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > If I had mentioned exclusion, yes. You provided an explanation for a why people "barely tolerated" (i.e., preferred to exclude) mention of hybrid languages at FP confrerences.
RichardFord 12y ago
Haskell is an imperative language.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> It’s a conference about functional programming. If they believe that functional languages are better for software development than imperative languages, then they may see hybrid languages as making unnecessary and detrimental concessions. If that kind of extremism was applied in discussion of other paradigms, we'd be excluding mention of "hybrid languages" like C++ from discussions of Object Oriented Programming.

evincarofautumn 12y ago
> If that kind of extremism was applied in discussion of other paradigms, we'd be excluding mention of "hybrid languages" like C++ from discussions of Object Oriented Programming. If I had mentioned exclusion, yes. C++ is mentioned at OOP conferences like ECOOP and OOPSLA as often as Scala is mentioned at FP conferences like ICFP, CUFP, and Lambdahack. But I have little doubt that a strawman proponent of a pure-OOP language such as Smalltalk—or Self or Ruby or Java or whichever language embodies the definition of OOP you prefer—would be as miffed about the use of C++ in lieu of their preferred language as hibikir’s friend’s strawman Haskeller is about Scala. And anecdotally, the top C++ developers I’ve worked with didn’t have anything good to say about object-oriented programming anyway.
- pjmlp 12y ago
  > And anecdotally, the top C++ developers I’ve worked with didn’t have anything good to say about object-oriented programming anyway. It is hard to get a good grasp of OO in C++, if you don't experience pure OO languages, at least for some time. Multi-paradigm languages like C++ are great, but that power can work against learning a specific paradigm properly. Good program design, regardless of the paradigm requires experience and the ability to use the tools that expose paradigm best practices.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  > the top C++ developers I’ve worked with didn’t have anything good to say about object-oriented programming anyway. Which makes sense. C++'s support for OOP is pretty painful. It would be like hating functional programming because of being exposed to it in APL.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > If I had mentioned exclusion, yes. You provided an explanation for a why people "barely tolerated" (i.e., preferred to exclude) mention of hybrid languages at FP confrerences.

RichardFord 12y ago

Haskell is an imperative language.