[asdasf]

>So Haskell doesn't do it justice because Haskells insistence on purity makes it impractical for me in getting stuff done

I know this will sound snarky, but I have to ask: have you tried haskell before? I only ever hear that line of reasoning from people who have never used it (and I was once one of them, using that very same reasoning to choose a multi-paradigm language). We bailed on scala for haskell precisely because it is pure and has a better type system.

[joostdevries]

"Useful for getting stuff done" is a point that Erik Meijer literally has made. F.i. you find him explaining his point of view on side effects and imperative programming here. And how he progressed from "fundamentalist" functional programming to "the real world is imperative & embrace side effects". http://youtu.be/a-RAltgH8tw?t=11m1s

You can't say that Erik Meijer doesn't know Haskell. :-)

[codygman]

The fact that Erik Meijer says that imperative programming is the way to go for the "real world" is deserving of attention, but it doesn't empirically mean "all 'real world' software is better created with the imperative paradigm".

From the sound of it this is his first job in the "real world"? If that's the case, perhaps he just hasn't seen patterns of applying his current functional knowledge in a way thats better than the best practices from the imperative realm.

How do we know after a few years he won't switch (provided he was a fundamentalist functional programmer) back to saying "now that I have a better understanding of 'The real world' I can see patterns applied with the functional paradigm are better than the best practices I've been using from the imperative paradigm."?

I believe this is the reason to keep an ear open for authority figures, but not to take everything they say empirically, especially when it's in contradiction with a position they've held much longer.

Apologies for the rambling, I was just typing out what came to mind.

[dragonwriter]

> The fact that Erik Meijer says that imperative programming is the way to go for the "real world" is deserving of attention, but it doesn't empirically mean "all 'real world' software is better created with the imperative paradigm".

Nor is that even, I think, what I think Meijer favors. Meijir's position, from what I've seen from him in various contexts, seems to be that there are cases in real world software where the most clear expression of intent uses imperative constructs, and its better to use them -- but understand and contain their dangers -- in those cases rather than trying to avoid out of devotion to purity.

> From the sound of it this is his first job in the "real world"?

Well, if you don't count the 13 or so years at Microsoft as being "real world".I don't think he ever was a fundamentalist anything.

> I believe this is the reason to keep an ear open for authority figures, but not to take everything they say empirically

"Empirically"? Are you meaning something like "uncritically"? Because "empirically" doesn't have any meaning that makes sense in this sentence.

[asdasf]

>You can't say that Erik Meijer doesn't know Haskell

That's true. But I can say that he is quite happy to tailor his message to his audience, If you listen to what he is saying, he is making the argument for haskell. He is just wording it for the PHP crowd. Haskell does allow side effects, which is entirely the point. But the "unwashed masses" as it were are under the misconception that it does not. So he has to take the "side effects are awesome" sales pitch, and kinda tosses haskell under the bus in the process. Unfortunate, and ironic given that haskell programmers genuinely feel that side effects are awesome, but what can you do?