State of the Haskell Ecosystem – February 2016

Compiling to JavaScript is totally okay if the new language 1) adds something meaningful (like a type system [TypeScript, js_of_ocaml] or the ability to conveniently deal with unboxed data [LLJS, Emscripten]) and 2) does not have a significant runtime overhead. GHCJS, in particular, adds a _huge_ amount of runtime overhead, largely because JavaScript doesn't (yet) support tail calls so the CPS transform must be trampolined. In addition, laziness doesn't make a lot of sense for frontend code, which generally should be as tight as possible. Also, look at the code produced by ScalaJS sometime and weep. :D

js_of_ocaml, on the other hand, produces extremely tight code, and is very suitable for building web frontends. Of course, OCaml probably has a similar learning curve as Haskell. I can't imagine people would get excited about the syntax.

TypeScript is a sweet spot: it's got some value over straight up ES6, but it's easy to integrate and has a very short learning curve.

I'm overstating my case in that post, but underestimating how hard this currently is doesn't change that there are things you'd want to understand before diving into a Haskell web application. Part of this is on the framework designers, it's mostly/only Scotty that has made any attempt not to incorporate concepts that would be difficult for beginners and it's more "hiding" than "not using".

You don't need 100% grokhood all along the way, but the current status quo is that people frequently flounder and burn out because the resources they _did_ use didn't explain things usefully or cover enough. This is not conjecture, this from a _lot_ of time spent working with people hands on via IRC and Skype and curating a popular guide: https://github.com/bitemyapp/learnhaskell

>"Why can’t I learn Haskell the way I learned $BOZOLANG?" >...I hope the book itself won't encourage the stereotypes about Haskell the way this post does.

The stereotype that I grew up reading c2 wiki and hacker lore? I've spent most of my career so far writing C#, VB.NET, and Python. I don't even really mind a bit of Python here and there, but I don't have much cause to resort to it any more except for Ansible.

As it stands, our readers have been taking breaks from the book to successfully work on side projects starting at about chapter 9 through chapter 26. Different people find there are different spots in the book where they can step away and get things done. The point is that the rest of it is always there if they need it. Education-by-blog-diaspora has not been terribly successful for many Haskell beginners up to this point. Partly because there aren't enough people for there to be enough angles on something that beginners can reliably find something that "clicks" for them. Another problem is that you want exercises to thoroughly understand a different way of thinking about and putting together programs.

In the end, it feels little different in my head than when I'm writing in something imperative, but the experience is more difficult than it needed to be for beginners for a long time. The book is me "scaling up" my ability to help people. Like it or don't, whatever, but please don't try to make a blog post I wrote into something it isn't so you can try to take me down ad hominem.

>...I hope the book itself won't take this tone. The community doesn't need it.

You can find out what the tone of the book is by checking out the sample provided on the book's website. No need to speculate. As it is, the tone is light but to the point. Readers have enjoyed the dry humor which is not at all like how I write on my blog. Which people have liked too. You should spend less time on HN commenting on things you don't like.

I have writing to do. Goodnight.

In the end you still might have duplicated dependencies if you use different stackage.org releases but it's a much better situation than using Cabal sandboxes where every project has its own copy of dependencies.

As a Lisper, I'm still stuck with emacs as the best-supported tool, and that's kind of a sorry state of things.