On Sunday 17 June 2007 23:56:51 Claus Reinke wrote:
i didn't know that Yi had acquired a tongue-in-cheek mode already!-) at least i hope that's what it was, because the ermacs lesson was not about contributing code or better language, but about sheer size and momentum being in favour of the weaker solution.
I think that we should not underestimate the transforming power of dogged determination. Think of Linux: only a terminal idiot could have conceived the plan of writing from scratch a clone of a 20 years old operating system (Unix) when everybody knew that momentum was on the side of the weaker solution (Microsoft) in the PC market and on the many existing commercial Unix versions in the professional market. Well, we all know what that stupid idea has led to. I certainly do, as I am writing this message under Linux. Whenever we act, we do so in a context that determines the value of our actions. However, our actions also create a new context. Linux, in the context in which it was started, was an unequivocaly bad idea. However, its existence has created a new context where it has a real value. So, the idea of writing an Emacs-like system in Haskell might be ill-considered but, as you also notice in the rest of your message, that doesn't make it worthless in a long-term perspective. An even more relevant example might be Eclipse: Eclipse is very much the Java Emacs: a customisable application framework with a zillion extension. Creating it was a major effort but, thanks to that effort, Java has greatly increased its reach and credibility, in particular as a viable solution to write desktop applications. Maybe, just maybe, yi might play a similar role for Haskell. Regards, titto