[klodolph]

Haskell has such an extensive set of language extensions, I would say adding new features to the type system is probably the MOST Haskell-ish way of doing things.

The explicit purpose of Haskell is to be a basis for research into functional language design (edit: among other purposes). By "explicit purpose" I mean exactly that... people got together in 1987 to come up with a language for research. Haskell was never supposed to ossify into some kind of "finished product", it was built exactly so people could experiment with things like linear types. If you want to just write libraries and get stuff done with a more or less fixed language, you probably want to be writing OCaml.

I mean, just look at the list of GHC extensions... there are something like a hundred of them! The list is growing longer every year. https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/latest/docs/html/users_gu...

[agentultra]

I do normal, boring line-of-business programming in Haskell every day.

I think Haskell does have a good model for bringing together practical application of theoretical research.

Parent's comment is spreading the myth that Haskell is an academic language. It's not wrong but it's not Haskell's only stated purpose or utility by far.

[klodolph]

I used to do normal, line-of-business programming and I stand by the comment.

If it sounds like I'm saying that Haskell is not useful for boring, line-of-business programs then I wasn't clear... Haskell is a research language, yes, and not exclusively so. But I'm confused why it's objectionable to spread a "myth" if that myth is, in your words, "not wrong". The stated purpose of Haskell, when it was created, is a matter of historical record.

> It should be suitable for teaching, research, and applications, including building large systems.

This, to me, means that we are not going to freeze the language, and sacrifice research, in order to support business applications. That would go against the goals of the language.

Doing everything as a library seems "un-Haskellish" to me because there's an ongoing and vibrant community that's doing research into things like type theory, which can't be done as libraries, and kicking that group of people off the Haskell platform just to support business applications would be a failure of Haskell as a language.

Haskell can support both groups.

[agentultra]

The myth that gets circulated by critics of Haskell is that it is an academic language and has no practical use in industry.

I think your post was unclear and supported that myth. After reading your reply I understand better what you meant!

I agree -- extensions do seem to be working rather well. I hope the new Haskell standard, Haskell2020, will include some of them into the language proper!

I'm looking forward to seeing how linear types work/interact with the rest of the language.

[jshevek]

For what its worth, when I read the parent comment, I did not at all get the impression that it was "spreading the myth that Haskell is an academic language."

[thesz]

They are fixing omissions related to full dependent types, many of them.

Compare language features and Haskell's approach: Erlang and distributed-process, goroutines and channels and Control.Concurrent(.Chan), (D)STM is a library, Control.Applicative and Control.Monad for many things hardly expressible in any other language, etc, etc.

Linear types, I am afraid, would go the way implicit parameters went - their use is cumbersome and they really do not help much with day-to-day programming and when they are needed they can be perfectly implemented with a library.

[dang]

> What are you talking about?

Please edit swipes like that out of your comments here. The rest is fine and stands on its own.

[klodolph]

I would love to edit that out but the two-hour edit window is so short, sometimes.

[dang]

I've reopened it for editing if you still want to do that.

[klodolph]

Done, thanks.