3 ms·

>The idea that you have to be multiparadigm to function in real world settings is a fallacy. Haskell is simply more expressive, which equips it to solve just ab

by guipsp 12y ago

>The idea that you have to be multiparadigm to function in real world settings is a fallacy. Haskell is simply more expressive, which equips it to solve just about any problem with more clean and concise code than you're likely to get in other languages. Even if the code size stayed the same the extra safety you get from purity and strong types would be worth it alone. Haskell is also not used any major project. It's an academia language.

tormeh 12y ago
I think that has more to do with syntax and the overdependence on rote memorization that it requires, and less to do with the actual concepts themselves. Lots of things are silly in Haskell-land, but that's mostly because it's made to be elegant or math-like, if I've understood it correctly. That said, multiparadigmatic programming is awesome, we just have to find some way to give as much information to the compiler in imperative instructions as we do in functional. This means that imperative programming has to be tightened up quite a bit, but I don't think it would be very drastic, really.
e12e 12y ago
I don't think it's quite right to say it's (still) just an academia language -- but it's absolutely marginal. I use two (three) programs implemented in haskell on a (semi)regular basis: xmonad (and xmobar) and pandoc. Other than that, I know of git-annex that is both actual programs and is in actual use. That's still more than the number of programs I use that are implemented in Arc... Haskell is academic in the sense that it is very opinionated about a few things (as this sub-thread illustrates). Lets see how Shen, Open Dylan and clojure end up doing ... (and of those, probably only clojure have meaningful contemporary systems implemented in it - so far). Maybe there's even more life left in Common Lisp (sbcl etc) or Scheme (Racket, guile w/guix nix (haskell! yay!) ...). Then there's OCaml of course...

by guipsp 12y ago

tormeh 12y ago

I think that has more to do with syntax and the overdependence on rote memorization that it requires, and less to do with the actual concepts themselves. Lots of things are silly in Haskell-land, but that's mostly because it's made to be elegant or math-like, if I've understood it correctly. That said, multiparadigmatic programming is awesome, we just have to find some way to give as much information to the compiler in imperative instructions as we do in functional. This means that imperative programming has to be tightened up quite a bit, but I don't think it would be very drastic, really.

e12e 12y ago

I don't think it's quite right to say it's (still) just an academia language -- but it's absolutely marginal. I use two (three) programs implemented in haskell on a (semi)regular basis: xmonad (and xmobar) and pandoc. Other than that, I know of git-annex that is both actual programs and is in actual use. That's still more than the number of programs I use that are implemented in Arc... Haskell is academic in the sense that it is very opinionated about a few things (as this sub-thread illustrates). Lets see how Shen, Open Dylan and clojure end up doing ... (and of those, probably only clojure have meaningful contemporary systems implemented in it - so far). Maybe there's even more life left in Common Lisp (sbcl etc) or Scheme (Racket, guile w/guix nix (haskell! yay!) ...). Then there's OCaml of course...