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

Three Months of Go, from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)

barrucadu.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 363 posts

Re: Three Months of Go, from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)

#261

Post by swift »

pekk wrote: post #251
platz wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In haskell the application has to be an elegant diamond or the thing won't even compile! Nonsense - You only have to make things as hard/elegant as you want them to be (and fore sure, some people do play that game for better/worse). But, Haskell will happily allow you throw everything in to IO; you can side-step creating a perfect model and just hack together a list of imperative IO statements. (unless you're refer…

If you are going to "throw everything in IO" then what advantage does Haskell have?

You can refactor it later, of course.

It's even possible to opt out of static type checking if you want.

GHCi also provides a REPL that makes exploratory programming easy.

Re: Three Months of Go, from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)

#262

Post by ngrilly »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #191
TheCondor wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to ask this without it sounding offensive, and I don't intend it that way. But do these "hardcore" haskellers enjoy writing programs at all? Like are there any well known open source apps that people actually use written in Haskell? There are tons of hobbiests and it has a following but what are the examples of its greatness? I ask as an old SML guy, I like the math theory, I like the promise of bett…

Haskell is actually less expressive. It is a functional abstraction on top of what is essentially a procedural machine and with all abstractions placed on top of lower layers you can only lose functionality as you go up rather than gain. You could say assembly language is the most expressive language out there. The great thing about Haskell and other functional programming languages is that the functional style force…

I don't understand the downvote. The main argument looks valid:

> If you have several tasks to execute, what is your first thought on how to plan out those tasks? A task list (aka list of functions) or a series of composed tasks placed in a single sentence (aka expression)? The answer is obvious: humans think about the list first because procedural programming comes more naturally. This I believe is the main reason why Haskell or lisps haven't taken over the programming world.

Re: Three Months of Go, from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)

#263

Post by notjack »

SwellJoe wrote: post #225
TheCondor wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to ask this without it sounding offensive, and I don't intend it that way. But do these "hardcore" haskellers enjoy writing programs at all? Like are there any well known open source apps that people actually use written in Haskell? There are tons of hobbiests and it has a following but what are the examples of its greatness? I ask as an old SML guy, I like the math theory, I like the promise of bett…

I've been thinking a lot lately about why Go, a quite minimalist language by modern standards, has been so incredibly successful in such a short time. It's about a decade old, and is already among the top 5 languages for people starting new OSS projects (at least in my area, which is systems management). Green field development is being done in Go at a rate unprecedented for such a new language, I think. Node/JS migh…

Go has one of the largest tech companies on earth actively pushing it and pouring countless programmer hours into developing tooling and support for it. That pretty much trumps all of its misfeatures in terms of gaining adoption.

Re: Three Months of Go, from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)

#264

Post by SwellJoe »

notjack wrote: post #263
SwellJoe wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking a lot lately about why Go, a quite minimalist language by modern standards, has been so incredibly successful in such a short time. It's about a decade old, and is already among the top 5 languages for people starting new OSS projects (at least in my area, which is systems management). Green field development is being done in Go at a rate unprecedented for such a new language, I think. Node/JS migh…

Go has one of the largest tech companies on earth actively pushing it and pouring countless programmer hours into developing tooling and support for it. That pretty much trumps all of its misfeatures in terms of gaining adoption.

So, it's previous analogs are Java and C#? That doesn't feel quite right, either, in that Google makes no money from Go; Java and C# are both direct moneymakers for their respective stewards. I haven't really seen Google pushing Go that hard; it feels like a skunkworks project that just happened to catch everybody's eye (including the company it came out of), rather than a grand plan to conquer the world of programming.

Re: Three Months of Go, from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)

#265

Post by twblalock »

This article's comments on code generation and generics are a good exposition of what I don't like about Go: it seems internally inconsistent, as though there is one set of features for the Go development team, and a lesser set for everyone else.

The nice thing about Haskell and the Lisps is that they are consistently the same thing all the way down through every layer of abstraction, even at the bottom. There is no point where you reach the "magic" or "forbidden" layer where the paradigm changes and it turns into a different language.

The problem with Go is that the code we programmers get to write feels like a DSL on top of the "real" Go, which uses constructs and "magic" we aren't allowed to take advantage of.

Re: Three Months of Go, from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)

#266

Post by platz »

ngrilly wrote: post #262
crimsonalucard wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haskell is actually less expressive. It is a functional abstraction on top of what is essentially a procedural machine and with all abstractions placed on top of lower layers you can only lose functionality as you go up rather than gain. You could say assembly language is the most expressive language out there. The great thing about Haskell and other functional programming languages is that the functional style force…

I don't understand the downvote. The main argument looks valid: > If you have several tasks to execute, what is your first thought on how to plan out those tasks? A task list (aka list of functions) or a series of composed tasks placed in a single sentence (aka expression)? The answer is obvious: humans think about the list first because procedural programming comes more naturally. This I believe is the main reason w…

I'm not the downvoter, but I still don't understand the assertion why Haskell doesn't allow the "task list".

There is nothing preventing using these "task lists" (e.g. lists/steps/procedures) in Haskell. In fact, "do notation", a core language feature every beginner learns, features it.

Re: Three Months of Go, from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)

#267

Post by tel »

pekk wrote: post #251
platz wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In haskell the application has to be an elegant diamond or the thing won't even compile! Nonsense - You only have to make things as hard/elegant as you want them to be (and fore sure, some people do play that game for better/worse). But, Haskell will happily allow you throw everything in to IO; you can side-step creating a perfect model and just hack together a list of imperative IO statements. (unless you're refer…

If you are going to "throw everything in IO" then what advantage does Haskell have?

Even "just IO" in Haskell enjoys some very nice typing properties and is often easier to write and ensure proper operation than similar "just IO" programs in other languages.

It's actually super pleasant!

Re: Three Months of Go, from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)

#268

Post by tel »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #232
didibus wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a great call out, though I see this in most languages, Haskell and go equally have implicit non local behaviours, but I find the functional paradigm tend to have less, because of side effect free functions.

I'm not yet familiar enough with Haskell to be honest, but languages like Scala, C++ (to the extreme) and to a lesser degree C# and Swift have a lot more support for non local redefinition of syntactic expressions than Go. I totally agree with you about pure functions. They can be a real simplification, but only if any deviation from purity requires special syntax at the call site. Otherwise you're back in the guessi…

> special syntax at the call site

Definitely Haskell's game then

Re: Three Months of Go, from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)

#269

Post by lilactown »

didibus wrote: post #221
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with "too clever" isn't just about cleverness that is actually in the code. It's also very much about cleverness that could potentially lurk behind any particular syntactical expression. When you look at a line of code, what can you tell about its semantics without considering non-local information? What is invariant and what could potentially be redefined? I think the answer to this question is extremely…

That's a great call out, though I see this in most languages, Haskell and go equally have implicit non local behaviours, but I find the functional paradigm tend to have less, because of side effect free functions.

I find laziness (coming from more imperative, non-lazy languages) to be a huge source of implicit non-local behavior. Trying to figure out how efficient my code is without specific knowledge of how certain functions in the standard library work/how the compiler interprets my code is a impossible.

Re: Three Months of Go, from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)

#270

Post by gbersac »

pmarreck wrote: post #170
bad_user wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot speak for Elixir, but coming from the Erlang world, I'm sure it's a fine language that has sane defaults, much like Clojure. However I switched from Python to Scala and besides the performance issues and the poor handling of async I/O that I had with Python, by far the biggest problem with Python was all the insecurity while developing with it. It drove me insane, because we had a production system that alwa…

Scala, where code you've written 6 months ago really does look like hieroglyphics to you or to anyone else right now who doesn't know Scala intimately ;) I would agree that the Elixir community is currently very homogeneous and therefore very pleasant. To some extent, that is true of many new langs and their early communities. I disagree that this is a premature strike against it. I say enjoy it (and work within it)…

I have been working with scala for 10 month now. Don't have a problem reading my code or open source / coworkers code.
Post reply on HN