[jhickner]

> Instead we are mired in the innards of the machine micromanaging absolutely everything with incredible verbosity.

This is one area where Haskell really shines. If you want the machine to be able to do what you want without micromanaging how, than you need a way to formally specify what you mean in an unambiguous and verifiable way. Yet it also needs to be flexible enough to cross domain boundaries (pure code, IO, DSLs, etc).

Category theory has been doing exactly that in the math world for decades, and taking advantage of that in the programming world seems like a clear way forward.

The current state of the industry seems like team of medieval masons (programmers) struggling to build a cathedral with no knowledge of physics beyond anecdotes that have been passed down the generations (design patterns), while a crowd of peasants watch from all angles to see if the whole thing will fall down (unit tests).

Sure, you might be able to build something that way, but it's not exactly science, is it?

[swannodette]

This is the kind of talk from Haskell folks that I find incredibly annoying. Where's Haskell's Squeak? Where's Haskell's Lisp Machine? It doesn't take much poking around to find out that non-trivial interactive programming like sophisticated games and user interfaces is still cutting very edge stuff.

Gimme a break.

[pestaa]

I'm sorry, but you're upset because folks are passionate about a language that brings new perspective, and maybe is not exactly as useful in some areas as existing solutions? This is exactly the kind of attachment Bret warns about.

[swannodette]

I don't think I expressed attachment to any particular solution or approach - I simply pointed out an extremely large aspect of modern software engineering where Haskell's supposed benefits aren't all that clear. So who's attached?

[nazgulnarsil]

This strikes me as being mad the Tesla doesn't compete in F1.

[munificent]

Are you trying to compare interactive software, one of the dominant forms of programs and widely used by billions of people every day, to formula 1 cars, an engineering niche created solely for a set of artificial racing criteria?

A better analogy would be being mad that the Tesla can't drive on the interstate.

[nazgulnarsil]

"sophisticated games" pretty specifically implies contemporary 3d gaming, which is not a useful criteria for exploring a fundamental paradigm shift in programming.

[asdasf]

The fact that you think a lisp machine is an "extremely large aspect of modern software engineering" certainly makes me feel that you are expressing an attachment to a particular approach.

[jhickner]

I'm not saying it's all there yet, just that it's a way forward.

[joyeuse6701]

We have many beautiful cathedrals don't we? So it is a bonafide fact that you can build something with the current state of industry. As far as the analogy goes I would alter it in that the peasants aren't simply watching, but poking the masonry with cudgels. Lastly, scientific methods of building aren't necessarily better, while they follow an order that is rooted in a doctrine, I can quickly think of all those scientifically built rockets that exploded on launch. To play devil's advocate, I'm not convinced that a scientific method is a better one than the current haphazard one we have in place for development.

[kbenson]

I would think a major benefit of a scientific method would be the ability to measure performance. Without measurement, how can we progress.

Don't confuse local maxima for maxima. We need people exploring other slopes for the chance of an apex, or at least some higher local maxima.

[state]

I think your architecture metaphor is apt.