4 ms·

> With multiple languages you don't just have the problem of training but you have other complexity-multiplying problems. > For instance, one of the reasons wh

by kalkal 12y ago

> With multiple languages you don't just have the problem of training but you have other complexity-multiplying problems. > For instance, one of the reasons why languages like Haskell are always a bridesmaid and never a bride is that they lack a complete "standard library". You need a urlencode() and decode function if you write web apps. If you write your own you may be more concerned with making it tail recursive than making it correct. I remember how the urldecode in Perl was busted for a decade and never got fixed, and that's a mainstream language. As flawed as PHP is, it took off because it had "good enough" implementations of everything web developers need in the std lib. I don't understand what you're saying here - are you arguing that we shouldn't use languages that don't have web functionality built into the std lib? What about web frameworks, e.g. Java + Spring?

PaulHoule 12y ago
In Java you can find implementations of that stuff and will probably use it. If there is anything wrong it is that there are too many different implementations out there. In the case of Haskell you ~might~ find implementation of that stuff but you'll probably think you're too smart to have to reuse somebody else's code and also be too smart to have to deal with the corner cases.
- sanderjd 12y ago
  Your criticism of Haskell here just doesn't have the ring of truth to me. Haskell has lots of good, modern frameworks and libraries for doing web-related things, which aren't difficult to use or any more corner-case-y than their corollaries in other languages. I get the vibe that there is some underlying point you're attempting to make and that the Haskell-specific stuff is secondary. Maybe your point is that using a technology stack with unproven maturity in a given domain (in this case web application development) is riskier and likely more time-consuming than using the more common stacks for that domain. If so, then I agree. (But I'm also very appreciative of the early-movers who put in the time and effort to make immature ecosystems around nice technologies more mature; somebody has to do it!)
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > In the case of Haskell you ~might~ find implementation of that stuff but you'll probably think you're too smart to have to reuse somebody else's code and also be too smart to have to deal with the corner cases. What is there besides extreme language bigotry to suggest that Haskell programmers tend to think they are too smart to do either of these things? Haskell programmers use other people's code all the time. And Haskell programmers handle corner cases as much as any other programmers.
- codygman 12y ago
  This is a silly comment, being that Haskell is very library and reuse oriented.
kyllo 12y ago
Haskell's libraries and packages are actually very well fleshed out at this point. That's not the reason for poor adoption. It really is just that it's academic and mathy and difficult to understand.

by kalkal 12y ago

PaulHoule 12y ago

In Java you can find implementations of that stuff and will probably use it. If there is anything wrong it is that there are too many different implementations out there. In the case of Haskell you ~might~ find implementation of that stuff but you'll probably think you're too smart to have to reuse somebody else's code and also be too smart to have to deal with the corner cases.

sanderjd 12y ago
Your criticism of Haskell here just doesn't have the ring of truth to me. Haskell has lots of good, modern frameworks and libraries for doing web-related things, which aren't difficult to use or any more corner-case-y than their corollaries in other languages. I get the vibe that there is some underlying point you're attempting to make and that the Haskell-specific stuff is secondary. Maybe your point is that using a technology stack with unproven maturity in a given domain (in this case web application development) is riskier and likely more time-consuming than using the more common stacks for that domain. If so, then I agree. (But I'm also very appreciative of the early-movers who put in the time and effort to make immature ecosystems around nice technologies more mature; somebody has to do it!)
dragonwriter 12y ago
> In the case of Haskell you ~might~ find implementation of that stuff but you'll probably think you're too smart to have to reuse somebody else's code and also be too smart to have to deal with the corner cases. What is there besides extreme language bigotry to suggest that Haskell programmers tend to think they are too smart to do either of these things? Haskell programmers use other people's code all the time. And Haskell programmers handle corner cases as much as any other programmers.
codygman 12y ago
This is a silly comment, being that Haskell is very library and reuse oriented.

kyllo 12y ago

Haskell's libraries and packages are actually very well fleshed out at this point. That's not the reason for poor adoption. It really is just that it's academic and mathy and difficult to understand.