|
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. |
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.