11–20 of 64 posts
I have and will continue to maintain that it's Haskell's operational challenges that are holding it back from wide adoption, at least on the web. In a lazy language, your cost model is all out of whack. When your program consumes resources, you can't unambiguously identify the line of code that caused your program to consume those resources. That's because a function application itself does nothing. Needing the resul…
I have and will continue to maintain that it's Haskell's operational challenges that are holding it back from wide adoption, at least on the web. In a lazy language, your cost model is all out of whack. When your program consumes resources, you can't unambiguously identify the line of code that caused your program to consume those resources. That's because a function application itself does nothing. Needing the resul…
The example provided is too contrived. By that logic, here's a way to "match" haskell with php: $a = range(2,100,2); $b = array_slice($a, 5);
Haskell's version is type safe. PHP, not so much.
Is it me, or was it a bad example for where Haskell "really shines"? I don't like the "use Haskell cause it has these really cool functions" approach. Feels so superficial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haskell's version is type safe. PHP, not so much.
Thanks for pointing that out. The author didn't emphasize that point, and it makes sense now. Is it me, or was it a bad example for where Haskell "really shines"? I don't like the "use Haskell cause it has these really cool functions" approach. Feels so superficial.
Having strong and concise type guarantees is great. Haskell's a great example of that. So is Ocaml.
One important thing in the article that was a bit obfuscated: modern OOP languages introduce a staggering amount of dependency and complexity. Things like TDD are then layered on top to try to ensure solid code is being built. In a pure functional environment, you don't have those dependency issues. Your problems boil down to types -- do you have the correct fields and definitions in your inputs? -- and transforms --…
This is yet another shallow puff piece on Haskell. Reading it, you would think that the author has only ever used Ruby and Haskell, as he gives the impression Haskell is the only language that supports functional/declarative style programming. In actuality the author is trying to sell Haskell because he sells Haskell IDEs. I'm not knocking Haskell, but let's not pretend that this is a useful piece of journalism.
What's not to like? Cabal, which unsurprisingly is not mentioned. Dependency hell makes it stupidly difficult to rely on other people's code on a large scale. I'd rather write uglier code in JavaScript if it means having access to other people's packages immediately and without complications.
The latest version of Cabal (1.18) includes built-in sandboxing support, which alleviates this problem to a significant extent. Prior to that, there were/are tools [^1][^2] for doing the same thing external to Cabal itself. Dependency hell has without a doubt been problematic with Cabal, but it is fast becoming a solved issue. [^1]: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/cabal-dev [^2]: http://hackage.haskell.org/package…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haskell's version is type safe. PHP, not so much.
Thanks for pointing that out. The author didn't emphasize that point, and it makes sense now. Is it me, or was it a bad example for where Haskell "really shines"? I don't like the "use Haskell cause it has these really cool functions" approach. Feels so superficial.
fibs :: [Integer]
fibs = 0 : 1 : zipWith (+) fibs (tail fibs)
One important thing in the article that was a bit obfuscated: modern OOP languages introduce a staggering amount of dependency and complexity. Things like TDD are then layered on top to try to ensure solid code is being built. In a pure functional environment, you don't have those dependency issues. Your problems boil down to types -- do you have the correct fields and definitions in your inputs? -- and transforms --…
It scales for us at Standard Chartered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haskell's version is type safe. PHP, not so much.
Thanks for pointing that out. The author didn't emphasize that point, and it makes sense now. Is it me, or was it a bad example for where Haskell "really shines"? I don't like the "use Haskell cause it has these really cool functions" approach. Feels so superficial.