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

New horizons for SPJ

discourse.haskell.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: New horizons for SPJ

#21

Post by ebingdom »

sjcoles wrote: post #19
cole-k wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be careful making such generalizations lest you give this vocal minority of haskellers more reason to believe that non-haskellers are luddites (edit: can you use the word "luddite" to refer to people who don't like theory? Probably not but pretend that's what it means).

I've used Haskell for a few personal projects (GHC 6.8-7.0 timeframe). It is great but I stand by my statement that the community's obsession with complexity (even if it's simpler from a category or maths sense) is the issue. Haskell's community is almost *obsessed* with increasing cognitive load IMO. I want to make things not argue about the best, or most technically correct, way to make them.

> It is great but I stand by my statement that the community's obsession with complexity (even if it's simpler from a category or maths sense) is the issue. Haskell's community is almost obsessed with increasing cognitive load IMO.

Personally, I consider it more complex to have to think about what side effects every piece of code has and what order things are evaluated in. The fact that I don't have to worry about these things in Haskell is a breath of fresh air for me. Also, not having to deal with the complexity of OOP when an ordinary function will do.

I think it's a misconception that Haskell is more complex than whatever popular OOP language people are using. It just looks more complex because it's less familiar (which I think is a problem with what we teach students in school).

Re: New horizons for SPJ

#22

Post by [deleted] »

cole-k wrote: post #17
sjcoles wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two Haskellers enter a bar. Two hours later both leave more confused than when they entered. This is what got me with Haskell. Any question is derailed into theory to the point where getting anything done is difficult.

I would be careful making such generalizations lest you give this vocal minority of haskellers more reason to believe that non-haskellers are luddites (edit: can you use the word "luddite" to refer to people who don't like theory? Probably not but pretend that's what it means).

[deleted]

Re: New horizons for SPJ

#23

Post by JNRowe »

Anecdote time: I attended a Haskell event at MSR some fifteen years ago, and one of my overwhelming memories is how approachable and friendly SPJ is. I had some pretty stupid questions around the topic he was presenting(STM), and he answered them with great vigour and clarity afterwards.

This does feel like a significant loss to MSR, and a massive gain for wherever he ends up. Fingers crossed it is a teaching role, as I'd like to think we'd all benefit from turning a few more SPJs loose on the world.

There is a recent MSR podcast episode with SPJ and Andy Gordon that is definitely worth a listen¹. It dips in to their histories, and also their work on Excel.

¹ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/podcast/advancing-e...

Edit: My other memory was the sheer level of professionalism in the support staff at MSR Cambridge, I simply can't recall anywhere I've been where the support staff have been as helpful and courteous as they were there.

Re: New horizons for SPJ

#24

Post by JadeNB »

sjcoles wrote: post #19
cole-k wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be careful making such generalizations lest you give this vocal minority of haskellers more reason to believe that non-haskellers are luddites (edit: can you use the word "luddite" to refer to people who don't like theory? Probably not but pretend that's what it means).

I've used Haskell for a few personal projects (GHC 6.8-7.0 timeframe). It is great but I stand by my statement that the community's obsession with complexity (even if it's simpler from a category or maths sense) is the issue. Haskell's community is almost *obsessed* with increasing cognitive load IMO. I want to make things not argue about the best, or most technically correct, way to make them.

> I want to make things not argue about the best, or most technically correct, way to make them.

Well, not all programming languages are for all people, and there are people who prefer the theoretical approach. Calling that an obsession with complexity is, I think, unfair, or at least inaccurate.

Re: New horizons for SPJ

#25

Post by LandR »

ebingdom wrote: post #21
sjcoles wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used Haskell for a few personal projects (GHC 6.8-7.0 timeframe). It is great but I stand by my statement that the community's obsession with complexity (even if it's simpler from a category or maths sense) is the issue. Haskell's community is almost *obsessed* with increasing cognitive load IMO. I want to make things not argue about the best, or most technically correct, way to make them.

> It is great but I stand by my statement that the community's obsession with complexity (even if it's simpler from a category or maths sense) is the issue. Haskell's community is almost obsessed with increasing cognitive load IMO. Personally, I consider it more complex to have to think about what side effects every piece of code has and what order things are evaluated in. The fact that I don't have to worry about th…

> it just looks more complex because it's less familiar

This is a problem I have at work. Everyone here thinks unfamiliar and hard / complex are synonyms. They aren't!

Re: New horizons for SPJ

#27

Post by tome »

ebingdom wrote: post #21
sjcoles wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used Haskell for a few personal projects (GHC 6.8-7.0 timeframe). It is great but I stand by my statement that the community's obsession with complexity (even if it's simpler from a category or maths sense) is the issue. Haskell's community is almost *obsessed* with increasing cognitive load IMO. I want to make things not argue about the best, or most technically correct, way to make them.

> It is great but I stand by my statement that the community's obsession with complexity (even if it's simpler from a category or maths sense) is the issue. Haskell's community is almost obsessed with increasing cognitive load IMO. Personally, I consider it more complex to have to think about what side effects every piece of code has and what order things are evaluated in. The fact that I don't have to worry about th…

Agreed. I use Haskell because it decreases my cognitive load.
Post reply on HN