I will be going into a situation where there are tasks that have yet
to be automated, so I will be going after that before re-writing
anything. But if I can come up with "here's why", there will be less
eyebrows raised. Thanks for all feedback so far.
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Gaius Hammond
My usual rhetoric is that one-off, throwaway scripts never are, and not only do they tend to stay around but they take on a life of their own. Today's 10-line file munger is tomorrow's thousand-line ETL batch job on which the business depends for some crucial data - yet the original author is long gone and no-one dares modify in case it breaks. So it is just good sense to use sound practices from the very beginning.
One of the features of Perl is that it will try to work even if you make type errors (e.g. give it a scalar in place of a list, or a string instead of an int). One day, however, it WILL fail. Haskell finds these types of bugs upfront, and not when your pager goes off at 3am...
Cheers,
G
------Original Message------ From: Michael Litchard Sender: haskell-cafe-bounces@haskell.org To: haskell-cafe@haskell.org Subject: [Haskell-cafe] help me evangelize haskell. Sent: Sep 4, 2010 17:38
I'll be starting a new job soon as systems tool guy. The shop is a perl shop as far as internal automation tasks go. But I am fortunate to not be working with bigots. If they see a better way, they'll take to it. So please give me your best arguments in favor of using haskell for task automation instead of perl, or awk or any of those scripting lanugages. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
------------------