[bjacks]

A little off-topic, but has anyone else found that a lot of Haskellers fit into that "pet technologists" category? I've worked with a number of them, and seen them sneak Haskell in, despite it not being the best choice for the project.

[jerf]

The really weird thing is that the couple of people I've encountered this problem with weren't very good at Haskell. A big ol' mess of code mostly in IO, scattered willy-nilly with a lot of code duplication (in Haskell of all languages!). No pipes, no lenses, unnecessarily partial functions, manual implementation of things the type system is supposed to do, just bad in every way. (Not saying you "have" to use pipes or lenses, but you ought to know what they are and choose not to use them, not have your choice forced by ignorance.)

And, uh, quite tetchy if I even hinted at the possibility there were better ways to write that stuff. These people also expect to be the only ones who know Haskell in the area and are, ahh, unprepared to be wrong.

For what it's worth, don't judge Haskell by these people anymore than you'd judge any other language by its worst adherents. It may not be The Answer To Everything (TM) but it is worth some study at some point by any developer interested in progressing their skills.

[cwb]

I asked myself the same question. What is the best choice depends on both stated goals, assumptions, and predictions, which means others might differ in their assessment of the right tool for the job. In this case, why was Haskell not the best choice for the project and do you think those that tried to introduce it would have agreed?