| >Oh really? Well that's good news too, because now I can just save myself those rewrites, because they're pointless. That's a 3x improvement right there. No dude don't even write it because likely it will be garbage. If you truly believe that nodejs apps don't need to be rewritten go to Uber. They never rewrote their entire nodejs code base in Golang. >If you have wizards, that is. Haskell isn't all wizards. It's just regular people who learned something different. >No, it's a "one time per hire" deal. Same with almost every other language that isn't popular yet. Rust and golang and kotlin and swift all went through this. The goal of any language is to become popular enough to get past this. >I'm certainly not calling all Haskell programmers wizards Then what is the big deal. If we aren't wizards then it's easy to learn. Programmers learn new languages all the time. Learning Haskell is just slightly more challenging and not a huge drain on productivity. Spend a couple more months training new developers in exchange for a 90% reduction in bugs and much better design. >See, that's another kind of expert that I definitely don't want to need on the team. I want people who have a basic understanding of SQL, with a reluctance to learn the ins and outs of it. That'll dramatically lower the chances of them trying to be smart with SQL. Eventually for certain queries you will have to get clever and write queries to optimize. Additionally to serve certain architectures you have to know a lot about the inner workings of the database and how to manipulate the api to get the performance needed at the lower level. An expert has no trouble with this and is an asset. This isn't about getting clever or doing tricky things with syntax just to be clever... this is about inevitability of the fact that a client will want to ask a question to a database that has grown so complex it is not straightforward to answer his question in a performant way. This is extremely common even for your run of the mill web app company. But that's besides the point. I'm comparing haskell to SQL because it's a similar learning curve. Both are expression based languages. In fact I would argue that Haskell is EASIER then SQL due to the type checking. Learn the language if you really want to understand our perspective. I use to be in that camp of why learn a freaking language when it's barely used, but that changed once I learned haskell. |
There is no "big deal". You're taking my facetious use of the word "wizard" the wrong way.
> Same with almost every other language that isn't popular yet. Rust and golang and kotlin and swift all went through this.
If Haskell already was popular, it would be an entirely different argument. Then we can talk about the merits of the language/platform versus the alternatives. Right now you're trying to sell me this exotic language used by exotic programmers who have strong opinions on design. From a business point of view, those are alarm bells. That's what you need to at least recognize, even though you disagree.
> Learning Haskell is just slightly more challenging and not a huge drain on productivity. Spend a couple more months training new developers in exchange for a 90% reduction in bugs and much better design.
This is what you believe and take for granted in your argument. I'm sure you're sincere about that, but remember, I'm not buying all those beliefs wholesale. Haskell has been around for thirty years, if it really makes for such vast increases in its productivity, why aren't those Haskell programmers dominating software development?
> This just tells me you're someone with little experience.
At least consider the possibility that there's some insight there that you don't quite grasp yet.
> Learn the language if you really want to understand our perspective.
"Buy the product in order to see why it's so great!" would be a terrible sales pitch, if you catch my drift.