The Haskell Elephant in the Room • Hacker News Board

Re: The Haskell Elephant in the Room

#61

Post by neilwilson » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 3:38 PM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #46

ogogmad wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know what's "pseudo" and not "pseudo" in economics? Given that it isn't a science. I'm genuinely curious.

Economics is a science. You get an idea what's 'pseudo' or not by working in or familiarizing yourself with the field. Say, The New neoclassical synthesis is very much as standard as it gets, whereas Marxist or Austrian economics exist on the fringes. In general something is pseudo-scientific if it operates outside of the formalisms or tools of that particular discipline, especially if it pretends that it does not.

"Modern mainstream economics is sure very rigorous — but if it’s rigorously wrong, who cares?

Instead of making formal logical argumentation based on deductive-axiomatic models the message, we are better served by economists who more than anything else try to contribute to solving real problems. "

https://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2020/07/28/why-economics-is-...

Re: The Haskell Elephant in the Room

#62

Post by sanxiyn » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 3:39 PM UTC

bondarchuk wrote: post #30

the_af wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> very little haskell-specific clarifications The author mentions at least three Haskell-related companies, such as FP Complete, and says he wants to avoid naming specific people for the time being.

If the only charge is that haskell consulting companies are writing code for cryptocurrency projects, then I have misunderstood the article first time around. I assumed the problem was with developments in the haskell language itself.

It does affect Haskell language itself (GHC anyway). See moomin's comment.

Re: The Haskell Elephant in the Room

#63

Post by heavenlyblue » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 3:39 PM UTC

hannofcart wrote: post #3

What is it about Haskell that makes it a hot candidate for use in cryptocurrency applications? Can someone here shed some light? Read the article but it mostly seems to be a diatribe against crypto on philosophical grounds. I wish it were meatier on the technical reasons for this alleged relationship between Haskell and crypto industry.

It attracts the same kind of intellectuals who like the idea of cryptocurrency.

It's like a double-whammy.

Re: The Haskell Elephant in the Room

#64

Post by seagreen » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 3:41 PM UTC

bondarchuk wrote: post #11

Very much a generic anti-cryptocurrency rant, and very little haskell-specific clarifications. I understand not wanting to name specific projects (Cardano comes to mind; " Cardano is a blockchain platform built on the groundbreaking Ouroboros proof-of-stake consensus protocol, and developed using the Haskell programming language: a functional programming language that enables Cardano to pursue evidence-based developm…

> however it would be interesting to have some examples of haskell developments that are fueled specifically by cryptocurrency applications

An article saying "this sector of our community is bad and scamming retail investors" is already burning MAD BRIDGES and putting an enormous target on your back.

"Bob Smith and Joe Brown, specifically, are scamming retail investors" is going even a little beyond that. It's just not necessary.

EDIT: For the writer of the article, that is. We in the peanut gallery obviously want all the details, which is why a little detective work is often required in these cases.

Re: The Haskell Elephant in the Room

#65

Post by sanxiyn » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 3:42 PM UTC

leshow wrote: post #58

Mentions FP Complete, who worked on cardano I think. So is the accusation that cardano is running a shady exchange and stealing from people? I don't follow the crypto space, but it seems like we might actually want to know which companies are being accused of being shady.

I don't think Cardano is running a shady exchange, but Cardano sure is traded in shady exchanges and people are losing money trading Cardano. I don't think that's a controversial statement.

Re: The Haskell Elephant in the Room

#66

Post by cinntaile » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 3:45 PM UTC

berdario wrote: post #17

praptak wrote: post #4

To someone not familiar with Haskell funding, can anybody explain the quote below? "For a while it has been a public secret the Haskell ecosystem has become increasingly entangled with an unsavoury variety in the cryptocurrency sector as one of primary mechanisms for funding development." I mean, what exactly is this "unsavoury variety in the cryptocurrency sector" and how is Haskell tied to it?

Also, since it might be unfamiliar to many, here's another article that puts forward a criticism of Bitcoin, many of which are for ethical issues: https://blog.habets.se/2017/11/Why-bitcoin-is-terrible.html It's about bitcoin, and not everything applies to other cryptocurrencies, but most of these arguments do apply.

It doesn't really have anything to do with the article though. It's just an anti-bitcoin article of which there are many. The article here is about cryptocurrencies that pull in money through ICOs and that turn out to be fraudulent and that use Haskell and sprinkle some right wing politics on top. In the end the article doesn't really say anything if you ask me and I don't really see the link with Haskell. Haskell just has properties well suited for cryptocurrencies so it gets used more than certain other programming languages for this specific purpose. This seems more like the author disagreeing with consultants, who happen to use Haskell, that take on (according to him) dubious jobs.

Re: The Haskell Elephant in the Room

#67

Post by Barrin92 » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 3:48 PM UTC

neilwilson wrote: post #61

Barrin92 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economics is a science. You get an idea what's 'pseudo' or not by working in or familiarizing yourself with the field. Say, The New neoclassical synthesis is very much as standard as it gets, whereas Marxist or Austrian economics exist on the fringes. In general something is pseudo-scientific if it operates outside of the formalisms or tools of that particular discipline, especially if it pretends that it does not.

"Modern mainstream economics is sure very rigorous — but if it’s rigorously wrong, who cares? Instead of making formal logical argumentation based on deductive-axiomatic models the message, we are better served by economists who more than anything else try to contribute to solving real problems. " https://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2020/07/28/why-economics-is-...

I'm not sure what that critique has to do with the original question about the distinction between science and pseudo-science, but I'll respond anyway.

The purpose of science is the generation of knowledge, it's to have a formal understanding of a system and essentially a language and methodologies to make inquiries.

Economics as a science does solve real world problems, but it's not the dominant purpose of a science as such. It's the task of problem solvers to take scientific results and then turn those say, into actionable policies. Scientific work does not exist for the purpose of solving 'real problems' in the sense of being subjected to that goal. Scientists are not engineers. When Computer Scientists talk about Big-O complexity they often do so in a way that's not really applicable to real-world software development, but that isn't their job.

That said economic theory actually does very much factor sucessfully into decision making. Be that macro-economic policy, central banking, the design of markets and incentives, and so on.

Re: The Haskell Elephant in the Room

#68

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 3:48 PM UTC

I get why he doesn't like crypto currency stuff. Why is it so toxic if haskell is used for it? Is there a suggestion that those that participate in coin related projects should be persona non grata.

Is there really no discussion about software as a dual use technology?

Re: The Haskell Elephant in the Room

#69

Post by xkapastel » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

bodhiandpysics1 wrote: post #49

BreakfastB0b wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a deep connection between Types and Logical Proofs (Curry Howard Correspondence). Haskell has a rich type system that allows you to “prove” (i.e. typecheck) many properties of your program. This is valuable when getting right the first time is important such as smart contracts. I put prove in quotations because all type systems of Turing complete languages are unsound, but this doesn’t matter too much in prac…

That's not true... all turing complete type systems are unsound (where the type metalanguage itself is a turing complete language), but you can have a sound type system of a turing complete language, and in fact haskel itself has such a type system.

I think it's the possibility of nontermination that leads to unsoundness. You can construct a well-typed program that never produces a result, which means the fact that a program has a particular type does not mean you've proved a particular proposition.

Re: The Haskell Elephant in the Room

#70

Post by akyu » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 3:50 PM UTC

"Adjoint Treasury is a real-time payments and settlement platform for corporate treasury"

Stephen Diehl CTO and Founder at Adjoint

I feel our author may not be entirely impartial here...