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

Haskell in Production

felixmulder.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 242 posts

Re: Haskell in Production

#161

Post by mbrodersen »

whalabi wrote: post #138

How is such an obscure language - with associated difficulty in finding talented engineers - ever going to be a better choice than a more mainstream language, which probably has many of the same features?

> with associated difficulty in finding talented engineers

This is a myth. There are now many experienced developers who currently can't use Haskell in their day job but would love to. If I decided to start another business, picking Haskell would give me access to a lot of top talent who would otherwise not be interested.

Re: Haskell in Production

#164

Post by mbrodersen »

dmitriid wrote: post #126
lalaithion wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

• Couldn't match expected type ‘([Integer] -> [Integer]) -> [b]’ with actual type ‘[Integer]’ • Possible cause: ‘map’ is applied to too many arguments In the second argument of ‘(&)’, namely ‘map (* 2) [1, 2, 3]’ In the second argument of ‘($)’, namely ‘map (+ 2) & map (* 2) [1, 2, 3]’ In the expression: map (+ 2) $ map (+ 2) & map (* 2) [1, 2, 3]

In my opinion this doesn’t help much.

Of course not. You have to learn how the type system works to get it.

Re: Haskell in Production

#165

Post by mbrodersen »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #9

> Haskell is great for business and great in production. Hot take: no it isn't. It is extremely hard to learn, has an extremely confusing + needlessly complicated syntax and I question the payoff immensely. I question the well-being of anybody who subjects themselves to the pain and torture that is Haskell. If I stood up in a corporate business boardroom meeting for tech analysis on a new project and said "I want to…

> I question the well-being of anybody who subjects themselves to the pain and torture that is Haskell.

I question the well-being of anybody who refuse to learn anything that is hard to learn. Learning is like body building. No pain no gain.

Re: Haskell in Production

#166

Post by mbrodersen »

CJefferson wrote: post #65
foopdoopfoop wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you've barely programmed in Haskell and don't know what you're talking about. > It is extremely hard to learn Haskell was the first language I learned. I didn't think this at all and I still don't. It doesn't strike me as any more difficult than learning Java or something. You may think this because Haskell is a different paradigm than what you're used to, so while you may be able to get quickly started w…

I have taught both Haskell and Java and there is no comparision in difficulty. Teaching basically all of the Java language can be done in a couple of days (excepting generics, which take another day or two), and the language bugs are always "shallow". Haskell on the other hand creates crazy errors which confuse students, and often require extensive teaching to understand what is going on. I'm happy to accept the poss…

> I have taught both Haskell and Java and there is no comparision in difficulty.

Interesting. How much real world experience did you have with both languages before teaching it?

Re: Haskell in Production

#167

Post by mbrodersen »

wolco wrote: post #94
madhadron wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't fathom a world where JavaScript is less efficient than Haskell. You can't fathom a world where a compiler can more easily produce efficient machine code from a statically typed language with very few semantic corners than from a dynamically typed language with lots of sharp corners plus reflection? I think you may need to meditate on the task of compilation a for a bit. Unless you mean efficient for the pro…

Efficient use of time I think the parent poster was referring to. You could have the project finished quickier in Javascript. Would you disagree? Does choosing haskell increase development time (ignoring major rewrites)?

> You could have the project finished quickier in Javascript. Would you disagree?

That very much depends on the project (I have a lot of experience with Javascript, Typescript and Haskell).

Re: Haskell in Production

#168

Post by mbrodersen »

microtherion wrote: post #72
brokencode wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you speaking from experience? The article is about the author’s experience from a year of using Haskell. I don’t think it’s fair or constructive to disagree with his findings unless you also have experience using the language, and it doesn’t sound like that is the case.

So if somebody asserted that INTERCAL-72 is the proper language to use for production code, you would consider it unfair to contradict them until you've used INTERCAL in production code yourself? Personally, I would not necessarily disbelieve somewhat propagating Haskell as a production ready language. However, I'm fairly confident that it would be thoroughly unsuited to any areas of work I regularly operate in. I ha…

> If that's supposed to be the way to write production code in the future, count me out!

Eh? Sorry but the code is really clear to me? Which parts do you find difficult to read?

Re: Haskell in Production

#169

Post by dragonwriter »

microtherion wrote: post #72
brokencode wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you speaking from experience? The article is about the author’s experience from a year of using Haskell. I don’t think it’s fair or constructive to disagree with his findings unless you also have experience using the language, and it doesn’t sound like that is the case.

So if somebody asserted that INTERCAL-72 is the proper language to use for production code, you would consider it unfair to contradict them until you've used INTERCAL in production code yourself? Personally, I would not necessarily disbelieve somewhat propagating Haskell as a production ready language. However, I'm fairly confident that it would be thoroughly unsuited to any areas of work I regularly operate in. I ha…

The only thing I see bad about that code is some bad variable naming, especially shorty/shawty, and possibly a couple bits of needless and unhelpful verbosity. Neither are inherent to Haskell.

Re: Haskell in Production

#170

Post by mbrodersen »

olah_1 wrote: post #146
PeCaN wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that this is to make Haskell more readable to non-Haskell programmers (which is a bit of a weird goal IMO). It is not for readable Haskell in general. Advice like "not using $" just makes code less readable if you're familiar with Haskell and is quite frankly just bizarre. I do not think you'll find many programmers, Haskell or otherwise, who find lots of nested parenthesis to be the paragon of readability.¹ If…

>Note that this is to make Haskell more readable to non-Haskell programmers (which is a bit of a weird goal IMO). It is not for readable Haskell in general. Advice like "not using $" just makes code less readable if you're familiar with Haskell and is quite frankly just bizarre This is why no one likes Haskell programmers and why the community just sucks. You're telling me that it's _more difficult_ for a Haskell pro…

> This is why no one likes Haskell programmers and why the community just sucks.

I like most Haskell programmers and I don't think the community sucks more than any other language community. So I guess that proves that assertion wrong.

> If the goal is to remain an impenetrable fortress / secluded monastery

I am pretty sure there is no such goal :D

> if the goal is to become popular and get others to understand the benefits of Haskell

I am pretty sure that is a goal for some Haskell people and not for others. For me personally I had a lot of fun learning Haskell. It taught me to become a better developer in any programming language.

Post reply on HN