| > Then what is the big deal. 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. |
And your taking my statement the wrong way. If there really is no big deal then there is really no big deal in me telling you and you actually learning it.
>If Haskell already was popular, it would be an entirely different argument.
If we are here to debate about popularity, then you win buddy. Haskell is not popular. That much is obvious. Every language starts somewhere and I'm here to promote why it should be popular. If you can't buy into that then well there's no point in talking. I get your point. Haskell is exotic and niche. But this is already stupendously obvious so why bring it up. If you don't want to use it for popularity reasons that's a valid point. But that does not discount the technical merits that lend positive credence to why you should use it. 90 percent less bugs then JavaScript is a technical feature that has profound impact on business as does 90 percent less developers.
> if it really makes for such vast increases in its productivity, why aren't those Haskell programmers dominating software development?
JavaScript was a language designed in a week and is largely universally considered to be a terrible language. Why does it dominate the software ecosystem? Because of circumstance and ease of adoption, that's it. Adoption rate isn't an accurate metric on productivity of a language. In fact these studies on productivity have been done before. The language that won was smalltalk.
>At least consider the possibility that there's some insight there that you don't quite grasp yet.
Why don't you tell me what your thinking rather then ask me to consider something that exists only in your mind.
>"Buy the product in order to see why it's so great!" would be a terrible sales pitch, if you catch my drift.
I do catch your drift. And you're right. Unfortunately my arguments don't seem to away you... If arguments don't away you than trying it is logically the only way left. But guess what free trial! Life time access. If you don't like it or if you like it, it's still yours, free!