51–60 of 218 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hence a reason why so many people are sticking to ML despite the lack of social momentum.
ocaml is a great language in its own right too; the only haskell features I find myself really missing are do notation and operator overloading.
Rust and Kotlin destroy any previous claims about practical usages of Haskell.
The similarities are striking. Both have a problem with undocumented or experimental modules for everyday tasks, both use compiler plugins to make sure that every package is using its own superset of the language (although in Rust this only applies to nightly), both tout lofty goals while rarely producing production grade systems. Rust is the first toe dip into the world of blog posts heralding the"coming of the age…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haskell definitely allows imperative programming, it's just not particularly good at it.
What is it lacking for imperative programming? I find it to be immensely good at it!
Something that I found about going from Haskell to Rust was that Rust provides many powerful abstractions without compromising on performance. It was very frustrating to try reasoning about performance in Haskell due to its laziness. Every language has quirks about how to write performant code, but Haskell is notorious in my mind for being quite easy to write obscenely slow code in.
Rust and Kotlin destroy any previous claims about practical usages of Haskell.
Rust still allows imperative programming whereas Haskell doesn't. This makes a big difference. Rust is closer to Alan Turing than it is to Alonzo Church.
Haskell definitely allows imperative programming, it's just not particularly good at it.
Rust and Kotlin destroy any previous claims about practical usages of Haskell.