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

How we secretly introduced Haskell and got away with it

tech.channable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 188 posts

Re: How we secretly introduced Haskell and got away with it

#51

Post by arianvanp »

slezakattack wrote: post #45

"It is said that Haskell programmers are a rare species, but actually the majority of developers at Channable had used Haskell before." Could you imagine if this wasn't the case? The hurdle to actually get people excited about a language such as Haskell especially moving from something like Python would potentially be huge. Kudos for already having that problem solved.

We're based in Utrect, where Haskell is part of the mandatory curriculum at and the language of choice for many master courses. Because of this, almost all our developers are somewhat familiar with it, or have at least had one course in it in the past, which really helps a lot!

Re: How we secretly introduced Haskell and got away with it

#54

Post by ska »

vkou wrote: post #32
chongli wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why the Python ecosystem, which is much more mature I hope I'm not being too pedantic but Python's ecosystem is much larger than Haskell's, it isn't really more mature . Haskell and Python are very similar in age as languages go.

Maturity comes from: * Millions of person-hours being poured into a language... * ...Over a long enough time period that the language can go through several develop-eval-improve cycles - that take real world use cases (And not one-liner bubble sort implementations) into account. In this sense, it doesn't matter whether or not Haskell was invented in 1890, or 1990. #2 is required for maturity, but so is #1. (I am not…

It is important to note that person-hours are not remotely fungible, and some contributions are even negative in the sense of "developing ecosystem maturity".

Re: How we secretly introduced Haskell and got away with it

#55

Post by arianvanp »

yawaramin wrote: post #40

Nice article. Out of curiosity, what does your write with? Vim/ghc-mod? Emacs/Intero? IntelliJ IDEA/plugins? Atom/VSCode etc.?

I tried spacemacs once but I found it too magic. I decided I should learn proper emacs instead of running a random playbox of plugins ontop of plugin. But haven't had the time to properly learn emacs yet.

I have tried various haskell plugins for vim in the past, but they always tended to break so I gave up fixing my config and threw them all away.

Now it's just plain vim (with some non-haskell related plugins) Next to it I have a terminal that reruns tests when a file changes : `stack test --file-watch` . It's simple but it always works.

I'm not sure if the vim stuff got any better lately, I haven't checked. So if you have any suggestions, please tell :)

Re: How we secretly introduced Haskell and got away with it

#57

Post by chongli »

vkou wrote: post #32
chongli wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why the Python ecosystem, which is much more mature I hope I'm not being too pedantic but Python's ecosystem is much larger than Haskell's, it isn't really more mature . Haskell and Python are very similar in age as languages go.

Maturity comes from: * Millions of person-hours being poured into a language... * ...Over a long enough time period that the language can go through several develop-eval-improve cycles - that take real world use cases (And not one-liner bubble sort implementations) into account. In this sense, it doesn't matter whether or not Haskell was invented in 1890, or 1990. #2 is required for maturity, but so is #1. (I am not…

You can't get 9 women together and produce a baby in 1 month. A lot of developments within a programming language ecosystem originate from new ideas discovered outside of it. It doesn't matter how many people you have working on a project if the crucial piece of tech they need hasn't been discovered yet.

Re: How we secretly introduced Haskell and got away with it

#59

Post by curtis »

kabdib wrote: post #49
mybrid wrote: post #6

In the 1990s I did research on the efficacy claims of object oriented programming versus procedural programming. This article bares a striking resemblance in the claims. Case study after case study showed that object oriented code had less bugs due to compilers catching bugs, etc. However, almost every study was similar to this report: it was a re-write from procedural to object-oriented. There exists strong evidence…

Given the awfulness of so many OOP-based frameworks that I encountered in the 90s, I began to seriously consider that OOP wasn't a better paradigm for most things and that instead it was worse , and simply caused people to rewrite code to the point that it overcame the procrustean bed of inheritance and whatever other tools the language of choice was providing.

My personal suspicion is that the problem there wasn't OOP, it was frameworks.

Re: How we secretly introduced Haskell and got away with it

#60

Post by lazyant »

mybrid wrote: post #6

In the 1990s I did research on the efficacy claims of object oriented programming versus procedural programming. This article bares a striking resemblance in the claims. Case study after case study showed that object oriented code had less bugs due to compilers catching bugs, etc. However, almost every study was similar to this report: it was a re-write from procedural to object-oriented. There exists strong evidence…

I remember just three things about the book "Show Stopper!: The Breakneck Race to Create Windows NT and the Next Generation at Microsoft" (1994): the death march, that they tested the OS by writing a file over and over (!) and that they thought the graphic part written in the new object-oriented C++ would save them a lot of time (it didn't)
Post reply on HN