|
| ▲ | raddan a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| I can only speak from my own experience, but expressing a program as a composition of pure functions, where effects are carefully managed, is a challenging way of thinking at first. The imperative approach really is simpler to wrap one's head around _until you start worrying about correctness_. I think many developers never really care that deeply, so Haskell never appeals to them. You really do have to take a mathematical approach to program construction. I personally think that the mathematical perspective is liberating, but it's not an easy one to cultivate. |
| |
| ▲ | tome 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The imperative approach really is simpler to wrap one's head around I've devised a way of programming imperatively in Haskell but in a way that maintains all the benefits of the type system ("make invalid behaviours unrepresentable") but I don't think that moved the needle on Haskell's popularity... | |
| ▲ | epgui 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I wouldn’t call imperative programming simpler. I’d say it’s more familiar to most people, because it’s the first thing they learn, and it’s hard to unlearn things. |
|
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | epgui 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I mean, everyone who learns programming learns a fortran/C family language. So Haskell is asking of them that they unlearn most of the things they’ve learned. It’s unfamiliar, and people react in a hostile way. In reality, objectively speaking, it’s a very fine language to work with. |
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | whateveracct 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| dumb people are loud |
