Haskell for a New Decade [pdf]
dev.stephendiehl.com
Haskell for a New Decade [pdf]
1–10 of 190 posts
Re: Haskell for a New Decade [pdf]
#2HTTPS is busted on this site, for me:
PR_END_OF_FILE_ERROR
Re: Haskell for a New Decade [pdf]
#3I love the clear eyed approach to what Haskell's future may look like. I look forward to seeing the fresh ideas the programming language community continues to bring forward in this area. Does anyone know if these slides came from a talk that was recorded?
Re: Haskell for a New Decade [pdf]
#4HTTPS is busted on this site, for me: PR_END_OF_FILE_ERROR
The link is to insecure HTTP. I think that site just doesn't support HTTPS.
Re: Haskell for a New Decade [pdf]
#5I love the clear eyed approach to what Haskell's future may look like. I look forward to seeing the fresh ideas the programming language community continues to bring forward in this area. Does anyone know if these slides came from a talk that was recorded?
Typically Steven posts the recording of the video within a couple of days.
https://www.meetup.com/Berlin-Functional-Programming-Group/e...
Re: Haskell for a New Decade [pdf]
#6I've heard from some long-time Haskellers that there is no point in continuing using the language after the advent of Rust.
EDIT: I should have clarified I guess - interested to hear the opposite arguments (as a neutral (C++) person :)).
Re: Haskell for a New Decade [pdf]
#7I've heard from some long-time Haskellers that there is no point in continuing using the language after the advent of Rust. EDIT: I should have clarified I guess - interested to hear the opposite arguments (as a neutral (C++) person :)).
As a Rustacean, I find that silly. There's a lot to love about Haskell.
I'd be interested in hearing from your Haskellers what it is about Rust that renders Haskell obsolete. As it stands, I can only construct straw men, and I'm not really willing to do that.
Re: Haskell for a New Decade [pdf]
#8I've heard from some long-time Haskellers that there is no point in continuing using the language after the advent of Rust. EDIT: I should have clarified I guess - interested to hear the opposite arguments (as a neutral (C++) person :)).
I've heard from some long time pear consumers that there is no point in continuing to eat them following the discovery of the apple.
Re: Haskell for a New Decade [pdf]
#9I think the focus on Haskell is missing the mark a bit.
Haskell is about programming language researchers and enthusiasts having a excellent example language to try out ideas. Over the years it has turned into a production ready platform.
As the PDF shows there are many languages spun off Haskell and it doesn't even mention them all. Then there are language features in C# and Java, Typescript etc. that are coming across from Haskell.
I think the problem with Haskell as a language as a mainstream thing is that it requires a lot of upfront investment to get used to. C# -> Ruby is 10 hours to be productive, 100 hours to be reasonable. C# -> Haskell is ten times that.
A lot of stuff to get your head around. There are complex topics from category theory to metaprograming. Sure you can ignore it - until you want to use a web framework that uses those concepts, then it's on you.
Instead of Haskell we should be thinking of programming language research and how to get the best ideas into our mainstream languages. How do we make immutability easy and ergonomic and get rid of nulls in C#? Can we have guarantees in our program. There are even features not in Haskell proper like Liquid Haskell that would be interesting to have in C# or Typescript.
This is what is needed if we want the Haskell ideas to be popular. That might not be what other people want.
Re: Haskell for a New Decade [pdf]
#10Very informative slides.
I do not have real-world experience with Haskell, aside from little toy projects, but I have a lot of experience with other functional languages in the ML family and Scheme.
Idris 2 looks appealing, but they should have also mentioned other approaches like Fstar, Lean and Z3. I quite like Fstar since they are delivering a big verified code base, as implied by the name of the effort: Project Everest [1].
While theorem proving is the most general approach to verification, manual proofs are tedious and full automation might never be completely possible in the short term.
I would love to see someone pushing for a different approach. A toolkit where you can create DSLs with limited expressiveness, which in turn make it easy to build and verify things. The equivalent to Alan Kay's Viewpoints Research Institute efforts to build a minimal computation system, but with some verification guarantees.