61–70 of 322 posts
The compilation time is the dealbreaker for me right there. If your language is slow to compile, it cannot be that good.
I know compilation times are a problem, but this seems untrue. Compile times are a problem of the compiler and not the language. GHC is slow because of how much it is doing behind the scenes. Other, more streamlined compilers may be faster.
Warning possible flamebait: could Clojure be the solution?
The new improvements to Cabal have been super nice of late, but one thing I _really_ wish Cabal would do is allow for multiple versions of a library to be used in the same project. Having to satisfy a single library version is incredibly frustrating, and the solver errors are incredibly confusing. This is especially confusing when it complains about a library deep in your dependency graph being in conflict. Ultimatel…
[1] https://www.haskell.org/cabal/users-guide/nix-local-build.ht...
> There is no featureful Haskell plugin for any major text editor which can be installed without command-line intervention This is not true for at least a year already, as there's IntelliJ Haskell: * https://github.com/rikvdkleij/intellij-haskell * https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/8258-intellij-haskell
Linked page just says “something went wrong” at the moment; cache: https://web.archive.org/web/20200608072453/https://dixonary....
> This is a temporary rehosted version while my website is hugged to death.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not for ocaml
I meant for Haskell, did you mean for Ocaml originally?
- I don’t like lazy
- ocaml is like Haskell but strict
- I want higher kinded types
(note this is a feature you can turn on in Haskell but ocaml does not have it[1]. The commenter is implying that ocaml is therefore not a sufficient strict Haskell)
- you say that higher kinded types are an option, which is true for Haskell but not for ocaml which is being proposed.
[1] there are ways to sort-of do higher kinder types in ocaml but they are not ergonomic and feel a bit hacky to me.
As someone who stopped following Haskell world few years ago, this was quite interesting read. I wonder what is the state of ecosystem (libraries) now: a few years ago one of my friends complained that for most basic tasks there is some library but usually half-working and abandoned. However: I think the point about monads is fundamentally misguided. Monad is an abstract concept and trying to explain it in non-techni…
Instead we throw projects and programming languages faster than I change my wardrobe. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm gonna need a source for that.
The exact quote and source (powerpoint slides) are in this HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1924061 . See also the insightful comment of plinkplonk on that thread.
Laziness enforced purity in the beginning. Now that we collectively know that reasoning about effects is a good thing we can remove laziness but keep that part.
I'd say it was a happy little mistake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The exact quote and source (powerpoint slides) are in this HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1924061 . See also the insightful comment of plinkplonk on that thread.
That has to be the worst set of slides I have ever seen. Thanks.