The idea that Haskell is in the same category as Forth or APL is completely wrong and the idea that Haskell only has stack for tooling is just plain wrong. Haskell already has libraries that are superior to anything else available for certain use cases. The idea that abstraction occurs only over functions is false. As of GHC 8.2.2, one can abstract over modules as well. Adding special syntax for record accesses would be inadvisable when principled approaches such as row polymorphism exist. On 07/13/2018 02:38 AM, PY wrote:
13.07.2018 02:52, Brett Gilio wrote:
On 07/12/2018 06:46 AM, PY wrote: written in Websharper and in any Haskell framework. Haskell is beauty
but I'm afraid its fate unfortunately will be the same as one of Common Lisp, NetBSD, etc - it's ground for ideas and experiments and has disputable design. Also it's more-more difficult to teach children to Haskell than to F#... https://jackfoxy.github.io/DependentTypes/ https://github.com/caindy/DependentTypesProvider Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15852517
Also F# has F* ;)
I wonder if this is simply a result of the marketing of the language, itself, rather than the strength of the language. I agree, F# has a lot of beauty, but there remain many things that Haskell has a leg up on that F# lacks, like dependent types IMHO there are several reasons:
1. Haskell limits itself to lambda-only. Example, instead to add other abstractions and to become modern MULTI-paradigm languages, it keeps lambda, so record accessors leading to names collision will lead to adding of 1,2 extensions to the language instead to add standard syntax (dot, sharp, something similar). So, point #1 is limitation in abstraction: monads, transformers, anything - is function. It's not good. There were such languages already: Forth, Joy/Cat, APL/J/K... Most of them look dead. When you try to be elegant, your product (language) died. This is not my opinion, this is only my observation. People like diversity and variety: in food, in programming languages, in relations, anywhere :)
2. When language has killer app and killer framework, IMHO it has more chances. But if it has _killer ideas_ only... So, those ideas will be re-implemented in other languages and frameworks but with more simple and typical syntax :) It's difficult to compete with product, framework, big library, but it's easy to compete with ideas. It's an observation too :-) You can find it in politics for example. Or in industry. To repeat big solution is more difficult, but we are neutrally to languages, language itself is not argument for me. Argument for me (I am usual developer) are killer apps/frameworks/libraries/ecosystem/etc. Currently Haskell has stack only - it's very good, but most languages has similar tools (not all have LTS analogue, but big frameworks are the same).
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.