The point about a learning curve is that Haskell is different from most mainstream programming languages.
> > 2. Haskell has some very nice libraries
> So does NodeJS and (on an abstract level) Microsoft Word.
> Libraries are infrastructures and investments that (like
> time and experience) can cover up any shortcomings.
Javascript is one of the most widely used languages in the world and MS Word leverages the Microsoft ecosystem, which is another of the most widely used development environments.
It's when you use less widely used environments (and Haskell may be borderline here) that you need to start worrying about libraries being available. I would not go as far as claiming that Haskell is as good as Javascript in that respect, but it is pretty good.
> > 4. Haskell sometimes feels like C++
> That is also negative, right?
I actually like C++ a lot.
It's also one of the most successful programming languages in the history of programming languages, so it has something going for it.
> > 5. Performance is hard to figure out
> That is also negative, right?
Yes, it's a pitfall.
> > 7. Stack changed the game
> Another infrastructure investment.
So you understand I was commenting that your post didn't really say much about Haskell (learning curve, libraries, tooling ). What you commented or implied is a bit of current Haskell culture.
> I actually like C++ a lot.
Haskell is an example of academic carefully crafted language, while C++ is rather a practically driven continuous patchwork (and they are extremities to both ends). I simply find your comparisons odd. Given their deliberate design choice difference and it ended up feeling alike, how can that be positive?
> Haskell is an example of academic carefully crafted language, while C++ is rather a practically driven continuous patchwork (and they are extremities to both ends).
Haskell is also a continuous patchwork, just look at the number of deprecated GHC extensions.
>>> Haskell is an example of academic carefully crafted language
>> Haskell is also a continuous patchwork
> which is the opposite of its pure vision, which is why I can't help think it is a negative
I'm very confused. One second, you're literally saying Haskell was "carefully crafted", and the next, you're saying it's "the opposite of its pure vision"
It's almost as if you're just trying as hard as you can to argue, not caring what stance you're arguing, just so long as you can act like the author is wrong
> I'm very confused. One second, you're literally saying Haskell was "carefully crafted", and the next, you're saying it's "the opposite of its pure vision"
> It's almost as if you're just trying as hard as you can to argue, not caring what stance you're arguing, just so long as you can act like the author is wrong
Let me write the complete sentence:
([luispedrocoelho commented that] Haskell is also a continuous patchwork ) (which I simply accepted and followed -- even though I am doubtful) which is the opposite of its pure vision, which is why I can't help think it is a negative (regarding OP's point).
I commented originally that OP's this C++ comparison is also negative, right? So it is consistent.
When I say something is carefully crafted, I am refering to its intention. When I accept that someone find it like C++ or is also a patchwork, I accept that as a reality. When the reality runs against its design goal/vision/purpose, it is a negative, IMHO. -- Hope this clarifies.
EDIT: to make it even clearer, I didn't comment that whether a pure design goal or a continuous patchwork reality on its own is positive or negative. That is subjective. However, having a design goal and reality conflict, that can't be positive.
The point about a learning curve is that Haskell is different from most mainstream programming languages.
> > 2. Haskell has some very nice libraries > So does NodeJS and (on an abstract level) Microsoft Word. > Libraries are infrastructures and investments that (like > time and experience) can cover up any shortcomings.
Javascript is one of the most widely used languages in the world and MS Word leverages the Microsoft ecosystem, which is another of the most widely used development environments.
It's when you use less widely used environments (and Haskell may be borderline here) that you need to start worrying about libraries being available. I would not go as far as claiming that Haskell is as good as Javascript in that respect, but it is pretty good.
> > 4. Haskell sometimes feels like C++ > That is also negative, right?
I actually like C++ a lot.
It's also one of the most successful programming languages in the history of programming languages, so it has something going for it.
> > 5. Performance is hard to figure out > That is also negative, right?
Yes, it's a pitfall.
> > 7. Stack changed the game > Another infrastructure investment.
Yes, tooling matters.