Taillefer, Troy (EXP) wrote:
Java sense (i.e. "cut out any feature that can't be understood in five minutes by a chimp")
Got to love comments like this they are constructive, objective, mature and accurate.
Glad we have your expert opinion to give us the gospel.
Can I get an amen? How about a Hallelujah ?
Admittedly, this is phrased in an inflammatory manner, however, the original sentiment is actually pointing out an advantage of Java over Haskell. Here is the original paragraph in context: Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
I can sometimes feel that Haskell looses out on not being user friendly in the Java sense (i.e. "cut out any feature that can't be understood in five minutes by a chimp"). Some things do take some effort to learn, but there is a huge payoff for it (it's really powerful!). But yeah, there might be plenty of folks who will never bother learning about them, and they won't understand your code.
IOW: Java's advanced features are separable from its basic features. I.e. you can teach Java without teaching generics or anonymous inner classes. In Haskell, OTOH, you can't even learn how to do IO without learning Monads, or at least glossing over oddities like a new syntax. And thats not even getting into issues like statelessness and lazy evaluation. So for a new user, Java is the better language. You can get into its features slowly and as you see the need for them. Haskell requires you to learn a number of mind-bending concepts right up front. Java has a gentle learning curve and Haskell has a vertical jump. But, Sebastian is right. The leap is worth it. Its the same as what someone once said about LISP: even if you never get to use Haskell regularly, you will be a better programmer when you finally "get it".