3 ms·
While Haskell itself doesn't bring too much new things, is has been a good vehicle to explore new concepts. Mind you, all ideas need to mature before having wid
by gclaramunt 11y ago
While Haskell itself doesn't bring too much new things, is has been a good vehicle to explore new concepts.
Mind you, all ideas need to mature before having widespread use, so is not hard to think on most of the ideas "being around for 30 years"
Applicative functors seems an example of something "new" as the paper introducing it is form 2008.
- sklogic 11y ago> is has been a good vehicle to explore new concepts Which concepts exactly? > Applicative functors seems an example of something "new" Too small a thing to be fundamental, to require any degree of re-learning. Of course there is a lot of new fancy syntax sugar and all that, but the nature of the lazy languages did not change a bit since Miranda. If you knew Miranda, you'll learn Haskell in no time, and 30 years in between them would not make it any harder.
- gclaramunt 11y agofor me a new-ish thing dependent types (I have a small experience with Coq) But yeah, since Turing and Church the fundamentals of computation hasn't changed. Nil novum sub sole
- sklogic 11y agoDependent types are making their way into more practical applications now, yes, but the concept itself is also not new at all, it stems from the Curry-Howard isomorphism, which is known for far more than 30 years. So, back to the point: anyone who knew how to program 30 years ago would easily pick it up now, without any significant learning.
- gclaramunt 11y agoI guess my point is if you learned to program 30 years ago using functional programming with dependent types and category theory, it must have been an awesome place to work/study, and I envy you. Which university it was?