Hi all, Time to delurk. I'm a Lisper and mathematician who has been reading this group for about a year, but I haven't posted until now. On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Jason Dusek wrote:

 What can we say to that? I'm well practiced in handling those  who reject types outright (Python programmers), those who  reject what is too different (C programmers), those who can  not live without objects (Java programmers), those who insist  we must move everything to message passing (Erlang  programmers). It's not too often that I meet an embittered  LISP programmer -- one who's well acquainted with a bold and  well-supported community of functional programmers whose  shooting star soon descended to dig a smoking hole in the  ground.

I think you rarely meet embittered Lisp programmers simply because we Lispers are rarely embittered, but are still Lisping happily, and don't feel that the picture of a "shooting start descending to dig a smoking hole in the ground" is an accurate representation of reality. :-)

 Who's to say Haskell (and the more typeful languages in  general) do not find themselves in the same situation in just  a few years' time? Is avoiding success at all costs really  enough?

That's funny, because from my perspective the situation looks diametrically opposite. Haskell is an awesome language, and I would love to use it, but the community seems so small, and I've never seen a Haskell job. Lisp, on the other hand, has a thriving community, several high-quality implementations for all major platforms, and pays my bills. My impression has always been that Haskell, unlike Lisp, is little more than a marginal research language which is only used in academia and by a few enthusiastic hobbyists. Am I just hanging around with the wrong people? I hope I am: I would love to have a Haskell job some day.

On Wed, 27 May 2009 11:31:07 -0700, Jason Dusek wrote:

What can we say to that? I'm well practiced in handling those who reject types outright (Python programmers), those who reject what is too different (C programmers), those who can not live without objects (Java programmers), those who insist we must move everything to message passing (Erlang programmers). It's not too often that I meet an embittered LISP programmer -- one who's well acquainted with a bold and well-supported community of functional programmers whose shooting star soon descended to dig a smoking hole in the ground.

Who's to say Haskell (and the more typeful languages in general) do not find themselves in the same situation in just a few years' time? Is avoiding success at all costs really enough?

First off, the real meaning of the slogan "Avoid success at all costs" is actually "We want lots of users, but not so many that we can't change anything anymore." According to [1] (see http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/history-of-hask...) (see page 10),

The fact that Haskell has, thus far, managed the tension between these two strands of development [as a mature language, and as a laboratory in which to explore advanced language design ideas] is perhaps due to an accidental virtue: Haskell has not become too successful. The trouble with runaway success, such as that of Java, is that you get too many users, and the language becomes bogged down in standards, user groups, and legacy issues. In contrast, the Haskell community is small enough, and agile enough, that it usually not only absorbs language changes but positively welcomes them: it’s like throwing red meat to hyenas.

One of the authors of the above-mentioned paper, Simon Peyton-Jones, elaborates in [2] as follows:

... Haskell has a sort of unofficial slogan: avoid success at all costs. I think I mentioned this at a talk I gave about Haskell a few years back and it’s become sort of a little saying. When you become too well known, or too widely used and too successful (and certainly being adopted by Microsoft means such a thing), suddenly you can’t change anything anymore. You get caught and spend ages talking about things that have nothing to do with the research side of things.

I’m primarily a programming language researcher, so the fact that Haskell has up to now been used for just university types has been ideal. Now it’s used a lot in industry but typically by people who are generally flexible, and they are a generally a self selected rather bright group. What that means is that we could change the language and they wouldn’t complain. Now, however, they’re starting to complain if their libraries don’t work, which means that we’re beginning to get caught in the trap of being too successful. Haskell has a sort of unofficial slogan: avoid success at all costs

What I’m really trying to say is that the fact Haskell hasn’t become a real mainstream programming language, used by millions of developers, has allowed us to become much more nimble, and from a research point of view, that’s great. We have lots of users so we get lots of experience from them. What you want is to have a lot of users but not too many from a research point of view -- hence the avoid success at all costs.

What makes you think that Haskell is likely eventually to "dig a smoking hole in the ground?" -- Benjamin L. Russell [1] Hudak, Paul, Hughes, John, Peyton Jones, Simon, and Wadler, Philip. "A History of Haskell: Being Lazy With Class." San Diego, California: _The Third ACM SIGPLAN History of Programming Languages Conference (HOPL-III)_ (2007): 12-1 - 12-55, 2007. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/history-of-hask... [2] Hamilton, Naomi. "The A-Z of Programming Languages: Haskell." _Computerworld_. 19 September 2008. 28 May 2009. http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/261007/-z_programming_languages_hask... -- Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/ Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725 "Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto." -- Matsuo Basho^