3 ms·

He is not saying that Haskell moved from the category of "Useless" to "Useful" (the spot on his diagram marked "Nirvana"), he is saying they are moving in that

by theoh 12y ago

He is not saying that Haskell moved from the category of "Useless" to "Useful" (the spot on his diagram marked "Nirvana"), he is saying they are moving in that direction... But in any case that's not my point. I am arguing that Haskell was never useless in the first place. (You seem to be ignoring the substance of my comments, so continuing this thread is probably a waste of our time.)

ZenoArrow 12y ago
" I am arguing that Haskell was never useless in the first place." Okay, let's get break this down. The Haskell project was started in 1987. Version 1.0 of Haskell was released in 1990. Version 1.0 had no monads (they didn't come until version 1.3). If you had to code something that was both pure functional and useful in version 1.0, could you do it? "he is saying they are moving in that direction..." Yes, of course, because "useful" is a relative term. It's a goal, but the work on making a language more "useful" is never complete. The sketch is not important here, it's just a simple sketch, listen to SPJ's words.