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);
Yeah, I don't touch Java very often (and my Java is more sledgehammer than scalpel at the best of times), but off the top of my head I'd reduce the example to:
int[] arr = new int[50];
for(int x =2; x There's probably a more fluent method to achieve the same result (in Scala, F# and C#, certainly there are), but I'd like to see a considerably less-contrived example from a more-disinterested party.
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.
Also, after a week I still didn't understand its type system completely. It may be that I am simply too dumb, or that I didn't find the right resources, but 'easy to learn' this language is not.
The type system is considerably more sophisticated than most languages we're accustomed to.
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.
As someone who has been curious about Haskell, I'm happy to hear someone else say this. The way this article was written feels exactly like the "ruby fever" of 5 years ago.
Or all the other fevers we've suffered through. Haskell seems like an attractive language but I wish boosters wouldn't advocate their languages as the fix to the problems of large-scale software engineering issues when there's little or no evidence for their claims.
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.
As someone who has been curious about Haskell, I'm happy to hear someone else say this. The way this article was written feels exactly like the "ruby fever" of 5 years ago.
"ruby fever" of 5 years ago
The difference is that Haskell is a very principled language. All of the claims and excitement are actually backed up by mathematical proofs. Pure functions really do make your code easier to maintain.
And no, it's not the case that Haskell is the only language which allows you to write pure functions. People who try to claim that are being silly and dishonest. Haskell's advantage is that its type system allows you to know at a glance whether or not a function is pure.
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.
Yeah, definitely just more propaganda from "Big Haskell IDE".
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 --…
But wait, don't we need to compare like with like here? Haskell is a break from imperative programming, not OOP. Could it be that functional programming just hasnt had enough industry time to develop an overhead concept that could be compared to what OOP did to imperative languages?
As someone who has been curious about Haskell, I'm happy to hear someone else say this. The way this article was written feels exactly like the "ruby fever" of 5 years ago.
"ruby fever" of 5 years ago The difference is that Haskell is a very principled language. All of the claims and excitement are actually backed up by mathematical proofs. Pure functions really do make your code easier to maintain. And no, it's not the case that Haskell is the only language which allows you to write pure functions. People who try to claim that are being silly and dishonest. Haskell's advantage is that…
While I fully agree that pure code is far easier to maintain than impure code, and the advantages of Haskell are numerous, I think it is a bit strong to state that such claims are backed up by mathematical proofs. Ease of maintenance is a fundamentally subjective claim that cannot be proven, but must be borne out by individual experience (as it has been for you, me, and many others).
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.
Also, after a week I still didn't understand its type system completely. It may be that I am simply too dumb, or that I didn't find the right resources, but 'easy to learn' this language is not.
I'm learning too. Btw, which resources are you using?
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 --…
Is it irony that the post right below this is complaining about Cabal and "dependency hell?"
I think the package system needs work, yes, but I'm not sure this is the fault of "Haskell the Language".
Although I've read some blogs that complained that ML gets this right, and Haskell makes it harder with it's typeclasses
"ruby fever" of 5 years ago The difference is that Haskell is a very principled language. All of the claims and excitement are actually backed up by mathematical proofs. Pure functions really do make your code easier to maintain. And no, it's not the case that Haskell is the only language which allows you to write pure functions. People who try to claim that are being silly and dishonest. Haskell's advantage is that…
While I fully agree that pure code is far easier to maintain than impure code, and the advantages of Haskell are numerous, I think it is a bit strong to state that such claims are backed up by mathematical proofs. Ease of maintenance is a fundamentally subjective claim that cannot be proven, but must be borne out by individual experience (as it has been for you, me, and many others).
Ease of maintenance is a fundamentally subjective claim that cannot be proven, but must be borne out by individual experience (as it has been for you, me, and many others).
I disagree. You can make objective measurements of maintainability. You can look at cyclomatic complexity and reusability (both wins for pure functions). You can test how often changes lead to bugs and how often the errors are caught. There are many instances of Haskell code where there is only one sensible implementation of a function, given its type. Hell, some Haskell libraries have even been formally verified though admittedly that is done with external packages.
I will agree on one thing, though: you do run into trouble when you throw around the word all (or indeed any absolute) without actually meaning it.