61–70 of 208 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incidentally, this is why prefix notation seems so foreign. (+ 1 2) reads as "plus one two." It might just be the Lisp version of Stockholm Syndrome, but it seems perfectly natural to me to gloss that as "Add one and two."
Good point. (eq (+ 1 2) 3) would read "is add one to two equal to three?" though.
Haskell has 3 major problems that are completely distinct in my opinion. Biggest technical problem: lazy evaluation. Other people have said more than enough here. Biggest cultural problem: technical oneupmanship and code golf. Haskellers can get so caught up in no-compromises stylistic competition that it makes it hard to get anything done. If you finally finish up something that accomplishes your goals, your teammat…
I'm happy to try to shut them down but I've pretty much never seen it (perhaps because I'm not in those other communities). If you do, please point me to it. Contact details here: http://web.jaguarpaw.co.uk/~tom/contact/
Haven't seen it listed neither here nor there, so not sure if I'm the only one, but: for me, the first and currently blocking obstacle is of "graphical" syntax. I'm of the kind of people who hear the words they read as a voice in their head, so when every line is interspersed with multiple "random" >>= -,-'-- and whatnot other ascii-art I can't verbalise, I distictly feel my brain stumble, mumble, and grind to a halt…
https://www.haskell.org/hoogle/ lets you search for functions by name, including symbol-named functions like and co.
(You can also search for functions by type, which is a pretty cool feature, but not what you were asking for.)
Haskell sucks because mutability and strictness are extremely important for writing large complex programs, and Haskell deliberately makes both of these things inconvenient. Also, Haskell's ecosystem and tooling is still crappy, probably because writing complex programs in Haskell needlessly difficult (due to laziness and immutability). And the "type-safety" guarantees are a red herring. They are not that useful in p…
That's funny, because I'd say that immutability is essential for writing large on complex programs.
Strictness, on the other hand, hmm, I can take it or leave it.
> Haskell's ecosystem and tooling is still crappy
No argument here.
> because writing complex programs in Haskell needlessly difficult
Argument here :)
> And the "type-safety" guarantees are a red herring. They are not that useful in practice.
I've found the opposite. Type safety has saved me so many headaches I'm never going back.
Mine is that it's built on a lie. A nobel lie, but a lie none the less. In order to be pure it has "stop the world and record it" with monads to do any IO. It pretends that the world can be snapped shotted and immutable. In reality the monad is only an extra box with a belief that the world stops. The world in fact does not.
Haven't seen it listed neither here nor there, so not sure if I'm the only one, but: for me, the first and currently blocking obstacle is of "graphical" syntax. I'm of the kind of people who hear the words they read as a voice in their head, so when every line is interspersed with multiple "random" >>= -,-'-- and whatnot other ascii-art I can't verbalise, I distictly feel my brain stumble, mumble, and grind to a halt…
I suppose the other extreme is Lisp, which I've played around with and found quite pleasant because of its very unambiguous syntax.
http://h2.jaguarpaw.co.uk/posts/complaining-about-languages/
I believe it would help everybody understand how we can improve people's experience around Haskell.
Hallo. I see some of you are listing things here. It really would be very helpful to me if you could list them on Reddit as well, using the format of the thread, so that I only have one source to deal with. I don't mean to instigate any Reddit vs. Hacker News rivalry, or whatever, but I just don't have time to go over several sources for my talk and PDF. So this is just a tip for if you want me to include your Haskel…
Haven't seen it listed neither here nor there, so not sure if I'm the only one, but: for me, the first and currently blocking obstacle is of "graphical" syntax. I'm of the kind of people who hear the words they read as a voice in their head, so when every line is interspersed with multiple "random" >>= -,-'-- and whatnot other ascii-art I can't verbalise, I distictly feel my brain stumble, mumble, and grind to a halt…
I'm very curious about this. Why do you think you have to learn it all by heart before you start with the language?
Haven't seen it listed neither here nor there, so not sure if I'm the only one, but: for me, the first and currently blocking obstacle is of "graphical" syntax. I'm of the kind of people who hear the words they read as a voice in their head, so when every line is interspersed with multiple "random" >>= -,-'-- and whatnot other ascii-art I can't verbalise, I distictly feel my brain stumble, mumble, and grind to a halt…
The "separatorless" style is also another aspect of the syntax that's turned me off Haskell --- most other languages have characters like ';' that serve to delimit statements, ',' to separate list elements, and ample use of parentheses to clarify how things should be parsed (e.g. identifier followed by '(' signals "function call", and the matching one signals the end of the argument list.) In comparison, Haskell code…