4 ms·

It also ignores the established practices system admins have had for literally decades now of writing hard or complex scripts from bash into more advanced langu

It also ignores the established practices system admins have had for literally decades now of writing hard or complex scripts from bash into more advanced languages like Perl and Python.

tome 12y ago
If you read the article you will discover that the very next paragraph is called "Perl/Python/Ruby are also evil".
- chrisdone 12y ago
  For what it's worth before someone takes it too seriously, the target audience is Haskellers: I'm preaching to the choir but pretending to give other languages due diligence. Using Haskell for this is a priori.
  - techdragon 12y ago
    And this is why Haskell is developing into the next "brogrammer" problem, except this time it's not as easy to give a catchy name to. Haskell programmers are developing a reputation (at least it seems so from the people I work with regularly as a system administrator) as arrogant obsessive purists. Would it be that hard to give python and Perl programmers a reason to consider Haskell for their next shell script? We aren't stupid, we will use what's good and worth it, many programmers start out writing simple imperative scripts, they are wonderful places to learn new skills, so why be dismissive about non Haskell programmers like this. Not saying you are trying to be an asshole, just saying that the lack of reasons other than "Haskell is better, just accept it" pisses off a lot of people and the more we see that message the more grating it becomes.
imanaccount247 12y ago
How does it ignore that? That supports what he is saying. sh is a bad language, so people use perl and python instead. This is simply making it easier to use haskell rather than perl or python.
- danieldk 12y ago
  One important of Python and Perl is that most systems have them pre-installed anyway, usually because some included system administration require them. If I write a script with #!/usr/bin/python as the interpreter, I can be fairly certain that it work (though it got worse since Python 3). I do agree that Haskell provides much nicer and safer abstractions. From a high-level, conduit is like UNIX pipes, but with typing.
  - imanaccount247 12y ago
    >If I write a script with #!/usr/bin/python as the interpreter, I can be fairly certain that it work No you can't. Only some (poorly though out) linux distros do that. Sane linux distros (back when those existed) and every other unix-like system in existence won't have a /usr/bin/python. This is why /usr/bin/env exists and is a posix standard.
    - techdragon 12y ago
      Which is fine, because that is merely a small part of the point. Using better languages is "normal", and we already have a 20 year history of doing it with Perl, and a nearly twenty year history of doing it with Python, the larger point being, "anyone writing these scripts knows how the hash bang works". In my mind, adding to the complexity of a system by requiring Haskell and this library is counterproductive when the goal us to improve maintenance efficiency.
      - imanaccount247 12y ago
        That makes absolutely no sense. You are complaining that a haskell library, written for people who use haskell, requires haskell. Python code requires python, perl code requires perl, ruby code requires ruby. So?

It also ignores the established practices system admins have had for literally decades now of writing hard or complex scripts from bash into more advanced languages like Perl and Python.

tome 12y ago

If you read the article you will discover that the very next paragraph is called "Perl/Python/Ruby are also evil".

chrisdone 12y ago
For what it's worth before someone takes it too seriously, the target audience is Haskellers: I'm preaching to the choir but pretending to give other languages due diligence. Using Haskell for this is a priori.
- techdragon 12y ago
  And this is why Haskell is developing into the next "brogrammer" problem, except this time it's not as easy to give a catchy name to. Haskell programmers are developing a reputation (at least it seems so from the people I work with regularly as a system administrator) as arrogant obsessive purists. Would it be that hard to give python and Perl programmers a reason to consider Haskell for their next shell script? We aren't stupid, we will use what's good and worth it, many programmers start out writing simple imperative scripts, they are wonderful places to learn new skills, so why be dismissive about non Haskell programmers like this. Not saying you are trying to be an asshole, just saying that the lack of reasons other than "Haskell is better, just accept it" pisses off a lot of people and the more we see that message the more grating it becomes.

imanaccount247 12y ago

How does it ignore that? That supports what he is saying. sh is a bad language, so people use perl and python instead. This is simply making it easier to use haskell rather than perl or python.

danieldk 12y ago
One important of Python and Perl is that most systems have them pre-installed anyway, usually because some included system administration require them. If I write a script with #!/usr/bin/python as the interpreter, I can be fairly certain that it work (though it got worse since Python 3). I do agree that Haskell provides much nicer and safer abstractions. From a high-level, conduit is like UNIX pipes, but with typing.
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  >If I write a script with #!/usr/bin/python as the interpreter, I can be fairly certain that it work No you can't. Only some (poorly though out) linux distros do that. Sane linux distros (back when those existed) and every other unix-like system in existence won't have a /usr/bin/python. This is why /usr/bin/env exists and is a posix standard.
  - techdragon 12y ago
    Which is fine, because that is merely a small part of the point. Using better languages is "normal", and we already have a 20 year history of doing it with Perl, and a nearly twenty year history of doing it with Python, the larger point being, "anyone writing these scripts knows how the hash bang works". In my mind, adding to the complexity of a system by requiring Haskell and this library is counterproductive when the goal us to improve maintenance efficiency.
    - imanaccount247 12y ago
      That makes absolutely no sense. You are complaining that a haskell library, written for people who use haskell, requires haskell. Python code requires python, perl code requires perl, ruby code requires ruby. So?