[goto11]

> The 3rd rewrite of your nodejs app still has technical debt. It still has flaws and still is buggy.

Are you seriously suggesting that code written in Haskell cannot have bugs, flaws and technical debt?

> Every time you redo it, you repeat the same mistakes over and over and over again never knowing how to make things better.

Am I to understand that people writing in JS cannot learn from mistakes, but people writing in Haskell can?

Haskell is a cool language, but you are not helping its image by such outlandish claims.

[crimsonalucard]

>Are you seriously suggesting that code written in Haskell cannot have bugs, flaws and technical debt?

No way. Not at all. I am suggesting that Haskell code will have significantly less bugs and less technical debt not none. I am not making a single outlandish claim.

>Am I to understand that people writing in JS cannot learn from mistakes, but people writing in Haskell can?

Yeah. Every couple years people who write JS come up with new garbage frameworks that don't really move the needle forward. React, angular, vue, jquery.... different flavors of the same issue while fixing old problems and creating new ones. Of course their's slight progress forward with things like type script but overall I see the same mistakes being repeated every generation. History repeats itself is a popular saying because there are just as many people who don't learn as there are people who do.

>Haskell is a cool language, but you are not helping its image by such outlandish claims.

Maybe you should understand my claim before calling it outlandish. Significantly less bugs and less technical debt is a real thing, but nowhere did I claim ZERO. You still need unit tests and you still need to think about your design.

Perhaps it's my fault. My comments deliver a perception about haskell that is false. I'll think about it, but in no way did I intend to imply anything outlandish about haskell.

[gridlockd]

> Every couple years people who write JS come up with new garbage frameworks that don't really move the needle forward. React, angular, vue, jquery.... different flavors of the same issue while fixing old problems and creating new ones.

People needed to figure out how to turn HTML into a somewhat usable application platform while it is evolving. The DOM of 2019 is not the DOM of 2009. Javascript ES6+ is far different from ES3. It's chaotic, but how could it not be?

The other day, someone posted a link on writing Haskell for the web frontend. Guess what, people were reinventing things over and over there too, it's just that nobody really took notice of it.

[goto11]

> Yeah. Every couple years people who write JS come up with new garbage frameworks that don't really move the needle forward.

I presume this is in contrast to the Haskell community where there is a single perfect web framework which solves all problems for everyone?

[crimsonalucard]

Yeah your presumption is absolutely correct. I love seeing you use loaded presumptions to try to communicate with me.

I presume that after I say this to you you’re going to stop communicating with me because shoving random presumptions up someone’s mouth isn’t a polite and civil way to communicate. Prove me wrong.

[goto11]

Fair enough. But you have are some fairly strong (bordering on inflammatory) criticism of JS frameworks and the people developing them - but without any specifics which would allow one to counter you (or agree with you for that matter).

It just "garbage" and "mistakes" and "people who don't learn" - how do anyone argue against that?

[crimsonalucard]

You can argue against the generalization if it’s wrong. If it’s not wrong your best bet is to stand by why the framework is good despite the correctness of the generalization.

It’s a cheap but affective method to use details to attack generalizations. However the insidious thing about generalizations is that details can be dismissed as noise irrelevant to the main point. A real argument against a generalization is another generalization, with supporting evidence.