4 ms·

> No, you are just wrong. As dons told you, "There are reasons why Haskell is not popular. These aren't those." I really like this Haskell group-think here. I

by codexon 17y ago

> No, you are just wrong. As dons told you, "There are reasons why Haskell is not popular. These aren't those." I really like this Haskell group-think here. I am not the only one to have raised these points before, and those people were equally ostracized. The level of replies has been nothing more than just "you are wrong", and you wonder why Haskell still isn't more widely accepted. And drawing an arbitrary line where purity can begin and end does not change the definition of side effects.

jrockway 17y ago
I don't know why I continue to engage you, but... I really like this Haskell group-think here. There is no group-think here. You made your argument. Nobody cares. Where we stand now: you think Haskell is unusable because of the three points you mention. I disagree. That is all we have. You could be doing the community a huge favor by pointing these things out, and "we" are just to dumb to realize you're right. But probably not. These are just your pet annoyances that you feel like talking about. (I have my own pet annoyances, especially with libraries that unnecessarily use IO when they could use ST or even hide the IO completely. Notice how I don't whine about this stuff, but rather simply try to avoid this in my own code.) You don't like Haskell or OCaml, clearly. So don't use them! (But realize that nobody really cares.) And drawing an arbitrary line where purity can begin and end does not change the definition of side effects. The point is you write code as though there are no side effects. There are side effects, but they are hidden from the programmer by the runtime system and by the libraries in use. Abstraction is the key to staying sane as a programmer.
- codexon 17y ago
  There really is Haskell group-think here. I commented on this story nearly a day late, and the only people that scour through these comments downvoting everything remotely anti-Haskell are the Haskell fanatics. These are also not my pet annoyances. These problems have been pointed out in the past (which you would have known if you even bothered to read the article). The fact that Haskell has done nothing about them for years is damning evidence. > You don't like Haskell or OCaml, clearly. So don't use them! This is where you and many Haskell fanatics are wrong. Just because I am criticizing Haskell doesn't mean I don't like Haskell. I want it to be better so people will stop using languages like Java with a last generation paradigm. Instead of taking the criticism in stride, people like you attack the person, and even managing to criticize Simon Peyton Jones, one of the designers of Haskell, for saying something bad about the language.

by codexon 17y ago

jrockway 17y ago

I don't know why I continue to engage you, but... I really like this Haskell group-think here. There is no group-think here. You made your argument. Nobody cares. Where we stand now: you think Haskell is unusable because of the three points you mention. I disagree. That is all we have. You could be doing the community a huge favor by pointing these things out, and "we" are just to dumb to realize you're right. But probably not. These are just your pet annoyances that you feel like talking about. (I have my own pet annoyances, especially with libraries that unnecessarily use IO when they could use ST or even hide the IO completely. Notice how I don't whine about this stuff, but rather simply try to avoid this in my own code.) You don't like Haskell or OCaml, clearly. So don't use them! (But realize that nobody really cares.) And drawing an arbitrary line where purity can begin and end does not change the definition of side effects. The point is you write code as though there are no side effects. There are side effects, but they are hidden from the programmer by the runtime system and by the libraries in use. Abstraction is the key to staying sane as a programmer.

codexon 17y ago
There really is Haskell group-think here. I commented on this story nearly a day late, and the only people that scour through these comments downvoting everything remotely anti-Haskell are the Haskell fanatics. These are also not my pet annoyances. These problems have been pointed out in the past (which you would have known if you even bothered to read the article). The fact that Haskell has done nothing about them for years is damning evidence. > You don't like Haskell or OCaml, clearly. So don't use them! This is where you and many Haskell fanatics are wrong. Just because I am criticizing Haskell doesn't mean I don't like Haskell. I want it to be better so people will stop using languages like Java with a last generation paradigm. Instead of taking the criticism in stride, people like you attack the person, and even managing to criticize Simon Peyton Jones, one of the designers of Haskell, for saying something bad about the language.