Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Haskell in Production

felixmulder.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 242 posts

Re: Haskell in Production

#81

Post by whateveracct »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #41
foopdoopfoop wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you've barely programmed in Haskell and don't know what you're talking about. > It is extremely hard to learn Haskell was the first language I learned. I didn't think this at all and I still don't. It doesn't strike me as any more difficult than learning Java or something. You may think this because Haskell is a different paradigm than what you're used to, so while you may be able to get quickly started w…

> Sounds like you've barely programmed in Haskell and don't know what you're talking about. You're right. I do not subject myself to Haskell because I can't fathom a world where JavaScript is less efficient than Haskell.

maybe you shouldn't be spouting answers when you should be asking questions then

Re: Haskell in Production

#82

Post by pyrale »

CJefferson wrote: post #65
foopdoopfoop wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you've barely programmed in Haskell and don't know what you're talking about. > It is extremely hard to learn Haskell was the first language I learned. I didn't think this at all and I still don't. It doesn't strike me as any more difficult than learning Java or something. You may think this because Haskell is a different paradigm than what you're used to, so while you may be able to get quickly started w…

I have taught both Haskell and Java and there is no comparision in difficulty. Teaching basically all of the Java language can be done in a couple of days (excepting generics, which take another day or two), and the language bugs are always "shallow". Haskell on the other hand creates crazy errors which confuse students, and often require extensive teaching to understand what is going on. I'm happy to accept the poss…

What kind of error would you like to see here instead ?

Re: Haskell in Production

#83

Post by [deleted] »

CJefferson wrote: post #65
foopdoopfoop wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you've barely programmed in Haskell and don't know what you're talking about. > It is extremely hard to learn Haskell was the first language I learned. I didn't think this at all and I still don't. It doesn't strike me as any more difficult than learning Java or something. You may think this because Haskell is a different paradigm than what you're used to, so while you may be able to get quickly started w…

I have taught both Haskell and Java and there is no comparision in difficulty. Teaching basically all of the Java language can be done in a couple of days (excepting generics, which take another day or two), and the language bugs are always "shallow". Haskell on the other hand creates crazy errors which confuse students, and often require extensive teaching to understand what is going on. I'm happy to accept the poss…

[deleted]

Re: Haskell in Production

#84

Post by [deleted] »

shantly wrote: post #54
dmitriid wrote: post #42

How long does it take the “new programmers who have not worked with Haskell before” to learn and understand all the ASCII-art in the example code? How $ differs from On top of trying to remember that is string concatenation and >>= and <- have something to do with monads.

I still can't understand why Perl is easily dismissed as "LOL line noise" but Haskell's apparently fine. At least dipping into Perl you can take on the line noise slowly so you have time to absorb each new technique, and you can write it just fine with hardly any of that if you want, and it won't hurt a thing—Haskell seems to dump all that on you up front, and it seems to require it, idiomatically. It's very off-putt…

[deleted]

Re: Haskell in Production

#85

Post by microtherion »

whateveracct wrote: post #80
microtherion wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if somebody asserted that INTERCAL-72 is the proper language to use for production code, you would consider it unfair to contradict them until you've used INTERCAL in production code yourself? Personally, I would not necessarily disbelieve somewhat propagating Haskell as a production ready language. However, I'm fairly confident that it would be thoroughly unsuited to any areas of work I regularly operate in. I ha…

What exactly is wrong with it? I've never even used the Scotty library or monad being used and I can understand it.

1. I have a vague idea what the second "do" is for. I don't have the slightest idea what the first "do" does.

2. I have some idea what "$" is, but I have no idea what it does in this context.

3. param "uri" is presumably extracting a parameter, presumably from the result of an incoming HTTP request. How is that request passed into "app"? How is it passed into the "get"? How is it passed to "param"?

4. Why does "parsedURI" need a type signature?

5. "Just/Nothing" more or less makes sense, but "Left/Right" (used outside the excerpt I quoted) is a notation that makes about as much sense to communicate meaning as "car/cdr" does in Lisp.

6. A response is generated. How does that response get back to the client?

7. What does liftIO do?

8. The overall syntax is just a pile of wrongness. There are left pointing arrows and right pointing arrows, which have completely different (and entirely non-symmetric) functions. There is an equals sign, which has a somewhat similar role to a left pointing arrow, but for some reason needs a completely different operator. There is a right pointing arrow in the function signature which is completely unrelated to the arrow in the case statement. There is an empty pair of parentheses doing Curry knows what. There are return values, which you can identify by following the peaks and valleys of the indentation.

So, TL;DR, this is an incomprehensible control and data flow, wrapped in an ugly syntax.

Re: Haskell in Production

#86

Post by RussianCow »

pyrale wrote: post #82
CJefferson wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have taught both Haskell and Java and there is no comparision in difficulty. Teaching basically all of the Java language can be done in a couple of days (excepting generics, which take another day or two), and the language bugs are always "shallow". Haskell on the other hand creates crazy errors which confuse students, and often require extensive teaching to understand what is going on. I'm happy to accept the poss…

What kind of error would you like to see here instead ?

The Rust compiler does a great job of making suggestions for how you can fix your code, which is tremendously helpful for the majority of cases where your mistake was simple. There is no reason (in theory) that GHC can't offer the same level of guidance.

Re: Haskell in Production

#87

Post by groovebits »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #9

> Haskell is great for business and great in production. Hot take: no it isn't. It is extremely hard to learn, has an extremely confusing + needlessly complicated syntax and I question the payoff immensely. I question the well-being of anybody who subjects themselves to the pain and torture that is Haskell. If I stood up in a corporate business boardroom meeting for tech analysis on a new project and said "I want to…

Hard disagree on the syntax. ML languages to me have the best syntax and their ease of currying is extremely attractive.

Re: Haskell in Production

#89

Post by wolco »

seddona wrote: post #63

We are a YC company doing very well, all our back end code is written in Haskell. We have produced a lot of functionality with a relatively small team. I would say we are existence proof that Haskell is good for business.

What happens when you need to scale up or if one or more of the gurus quits? Do you think Haskell will still be primarily used when you grow?

Re: Haskell in Production

#90

Post by wolco »

CJefferson wrote: post #65
foopdoopfoop wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you've barely programmed in Haskell and don't know what you're talking about. > It is extremely hard to learn Haskell was the first language I learned. I didn't think this at all and I still don't. It doesn't strike me as any more difficult than learning Java or something. You may think this because Haskell is a different paradigm than what you're used to, so while you may be able to get quickly started w…

I have taught both Haskell and Java and there is no comparision in difficulty. Teaching basically all of the Java language can be done in a couple of days (excepting generics, which take another day or two), and the language bugs are always "shallow". Haskell on the other hand creates crazy errors which confuse students, and often require extensive teaching to understand what is going on. I'm happy to accept the poss…

That error message is easy to understand.

Explaining why a language can't handle print 2 + 3 is priceless.

It seems like an interesting language to learn for the sake of learning but introducing this to a beginner is not fair.

Post reply on HN