[ianpurton]

> As a result, both languages have steep learning curves compared with other languages.

Well yes and no. In a way the features such as immutability and algebraic data types are things you should know about as a software developer even if your current language means you can't use them at the moment.

My 16 year old son has learned Rust coming from a python at school background and is now writing small games in the bevy game engine.

[surement]

> yes and no

Having to understand monad transformers or another kind of effect system to get anything working is a heavy load that's unnecessary in other languages.

[cosmic_quanta]

You need to use the IO monad to get anything working, true. Monad transformers? Not at all.

I'd say knowing how to use monad transformers is the barrier between intermediate and expert Haskell programmers.

[sshine]

You don’t even really need to understand monad transformers in general to use just the ‘ReaderT IO’ pattern, and if you want to go crazier, free monads are both easier to understand, and more flexible.

[jeremyjh]

I'd say using transformers are more the barrier between beginner and intermediate. Its not impossible to do serious work without them but I'm not sure its worth doing.

[ghostwriter]

> Its not impossible to do serious work without them but I'm not sure its worth doing.

How do you think the folks on Java and C# find their work worth doing on their end in that case?

[jeremyjh]

Because they aren't using Haskell? Haskell more or less creates all the problems that transformers solve.

[ghostwriter]

Such as what exactly? One can literally define the entire application state as a collection of iorefs and pass it around explicitly to actions defined universally as IO to emulate the default state of art in $mainstreamLang. The users of $mainstreamLang find it worthy and fulfilling and probably don't know a thing about transformers. Then why holding the work done in Haskell to a different standard of worthiness?

[noloblo]

What problems does haskell create How do Monad transformers solve it @jeremyjh

[mayoff]

Java code is always in the IO and Except monads.

[weavie]

I would say using them is beginner->intermediate. Writing them is intermediate->advanced.

[jeremyjh]

I'd agree in general and almost made this same point but it depends on what you are doing. If you write a transformer that is essentially just a specific kind of Reader (like ResourceT), then you can just follow existing examples and not really have to understand how to write all the instances yourself.

[cosmic_quanta]

That's a good distinction

[anon291]

You don't need to know that to write haskell

Effect systems and monad transformers are advanced topics. They're possible to use in my language yet most people do not and can still write software.

Certainly no need for them in Haskell to be successful. You can just program at the lower levels of abstraction common in other languages.

The only difference is that Haskell's community tends to emphasize abstraction

[YuukiRey]

I hear this opinion every so often but I just don't think it's really the case. Many libraries out there expect you to use Monad transformers. You might try to keep MTL out of your own application code, but you'll find that the rest of the ecosystem favors it. You can still use these libraries without MTL, but it's often not ergonomic and therefore not really an option.

[klntsky]

There's no way to even get a job without understanding monad transformers.

[tome]

If true that's sad and hopefully effectful will bring than to an end https://github.com/haskell-effectful

[yboris]

steep learning curve usually means the opposite of what the author wants to say:

"The common expression "a steep learning curve" is a misnomer suggesting that an activity is difficult to learn and that expending much effort does not increase proficiency by much, although a learning curve with a steep start actually represents rapid progress."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve

When writing, consider "challenging learning curve" instead (I'd love other suggestions too).

[blep_]

If essentially everyone uses it to mean one thing, that's what it means now. That's how definitions work.

[IAmYourDensity]

Does that apply to “Hacker” in Hacker News?

[ketralnis]

Sure. Language is contextual. If you find yourself explaining why hacker isn't really hacker to the people that you talk to _about_ hacker news, then yes it is actually impeding communication

[martinflack]

I always imagined a mountain climb. So steep learning curve would mean daunting, high effort, high "drag" (gravity), but if you undertake it and push hard, you do, in fact, gain tons of utility (rather than proficiency per se) in a short amount of time.

[creata]

Easy fix, put time on the y-axis.

[thomastjeffery]

You can consider a function with a steep slope from either perspective. The defining factor is the context that function exists in.