3 ms·

I think his argument held more weight in 2005. Even though Haskell at that point was 10 years old I dont think it was quite the poster child of FP it is today.

by efnx 12y ago

I think his argument held more weight in 2005. Even though Haskell at that point was 10 years old I dont think it was quite the poster child of FP it is today. It's my guess that he's talking about non-pure FPLs like Lisps and MLs, which today don't seem nearly as FP as Haskell, Idris, Agda, Coq - the langs that are now carrying the FP torch.

jeremyjh 12y ago
There it is. I noticed it was 2005 but didn't think of this. I was trying very hard to understand statements like: >Now.. with those definitions in place, you can see how the relationship between simultaneity and lazy evaluation isn't quite as simple as it appears at first glance. It's theoretically possible that the 'f()' or 'x' might change between the lazy evaluation of step one and the lazy evaluation of step three million. Trying to prevent that is what we programmers call a 'hard' problem. It only makes sense if you don't consider Haskell to be the most immediate example for lazy, purely functional programming.
weeksie 12y ago
Haskell was _absolutely_ the poster child of FP in 2005.
- efnx 12y ago
  Then he's not thinking of Haskell when talking about referential transparency and variable assignment, or the other points of his post.
- tel 12y ago
  But Haskell_2005 presented more difficulties (and research opportunities) than Haskell_2014. It was always interesting but now it's also proven to be powerful and meaningful in a way nobody had gotten around to at that point.
- duaneb 12y ago
  I disagree; I think, at the time, functional programmers were primarily using OCaml and various lisps. This is purely anecdotal, mind you, and haskell was definitely on the FP radar big time.
  - weeksie 12y ago
    I dunno. I remember it being all over LtU and most every programming language discussion was that or scheme, but always treating Haskell like it was the ideal (and it had become default on research papers instead of OCaml)
  - weeksie 12y ago
    Also, I remember when this came out the first time and the discussion on proggit was replying using mainly Haskell examples.

by efnx 12y ago

jeremyjh 12y ago

There it is. I noticed it was 2005 but didn't think of this. I was trying very hard to understand statements like: >Now.. with those definitions in place, you can see how the relationship between simultaneity and lazy evaluation isn't quite as simple as it appears at first glance. It's theoretically possible that the 'f()' or 'x' might change between the lazy evaluation of step one and the lazy evaluation of step three million. Trying to prevent that is what we programmers call a 'hard' problem. It only makes sense if you don't consider Haskell to be the most immediate example for lazy, purely functional programming.

weeksie 12y ago

Haskell was _absolutely_ the poster child of FP in 2005.

efnx 12y ago
Then he's not thinking of Haskell when talking about referential transparency and variable assignment, or the other points of his post.
tel 12y ago
But Haskell_2005 presented more difficulties (and research opportunities) than Haskell_2014. It was always interesting but now it's also proven to be powerful and meaningful in a way nobody had gotten around to at that point.
duaneb 12y ago
I disagree; I think, at the time, functional programmers were primarily using OCaml and various lisps. This is purely anecdotal, mind you, and haskell was definitely on the FP radar big time.
- weeksie 12y ago
  I dunno. I remember it being all over LtU and most every programming language discussion was that or scheme, but always treating Haskell like it was the ideal (and it had become default on research papers instead of OCaml)
- weeksie 12y ago
  Also, I remember when this came out the first time and the discussion on proggit was replying using mainly Haskell examples.