New article is up:
https://storify.com/realtalktech/haskell-has-no-benefits-is-good-for-nothing
Why do haskell programmers virtue signal in bold like breathing?
agree'd
What's your end goal?
>>51753914
For Haskell programmers to understand concepts in computer science exist in other languages, often magnitudes stronger, without any downsides.
>>51753940
But you haven't done this. All you've done is complain about how functional programmers allegedly behave instead of criticizing the languages.
>>51753751
Clickbait, that whole article contains two "arguments":
1. ad populum: nobody uses haskell, therefore it must be bad.
2. ad hominem: Haskell programmers can't program and their opinion doesn't matter.
Not even a Haskell programmer, I just hate stupid bullshit like that.
>>51754025
wow latin terms you must be really smart!
>>51753962
>allegedly behave
Those are their words.
>instead of criticizing the languages
I've pasted haskell on the website.
I've mentioned the fact haskell is not strong in any domain of programming (video, music, gaming, health, finance, web, ios, android, tv, cars, space, airplanes, etc)
If you want to push a language - the burden is on you not just to spit out CS glossary concepts as if your language invented them - but to actually *have* merits.
Please see >>51753561
Remember:
> Haskell emphasizes a different style of programming with an extremely minimalistic and simple syntax( devoid of colons, braces, brackets and other ugly looking special characters) making your code look like a Mozart or Beethoven masterpiece.
https://youtu.be/fyMhvkC3A84
https://s3.amazonaws.com/effie_assets/2007/1826/2007_1826_hero_1.jpg
Don't be a manboob in a suit, use Haskell and get laid.
>>51753751
Honest question, what is Haskell actually good for? Isn't the point of programming languages to become easier and therefor be able to write more and more complicated stuff as more abstractions get added?
If a language is so difficult that it takes very long to learn let alone master then it kind of defeats the purpose. The "oh my language is so powerful because I can do this cool trick that will take me a couple of hours to read 6 month - 1 year from now" then what's the point?
Also, what's the point of purity if is just works against you?
>>51754043
Probably smarter than you, anon. They probably are one of the few logical users on /pol/
>>51754240
>Honest question, what is Haskell actually good for?
Writing compilers, and it's a good host language for EDSLs.
>Also, what's the point of purity if is just works against you?
Purity in general doesn't work against you. With linear types (which are encoded in Haskell with monads), purity admits side effects, but retains the quality of working with all evaluation strategies.
>>51754336
>Writing compilers,
LLVM, GCC.
Are they written in Haskell? Why not?
What billion dollar, multi-tiered compiler written by a fortune 500 company used Haskell? Microsoft or Sun?
>>51754336
>Purity in general doesn't work against you. With linear types (which are encoded in Haskell with monads), purity admits side effects, but retains the quality of working with all evaluation strategies.
I don't have to worry about understanding monads because I already understand an *orthodox*, *faster* and more *mature* and *portable* language called C++.
>>51754228
>linking images on an imageboard
are you retarded?
>>51754025
>it's the ad populum functional-defender guy again
>>51755406
Haskell is good for writing compilers for a project language in CS courses.
It is good for nothing else in 2015. This is coming from someone who enjoys functional programming a lot, but recognizes it's obsolescence. The functional defenders here are merely going through a phase and will probably grow out of it in time.
>>51753751
Another salty python babby that was too stupid to learn a functional paradigm
>>51756075
I'm still waiting for the static typing defenders to do the same.
>>51754070
Goldman Sachs use haskell.
>>51757554
Goldman Sachs uses top secret codes that could be written in any language and there's no way of proving which one it is. You can literally make up anything to fit those facts. You could say the NASA uses Haskell and it would be just as likely.
Haskell is a very good language for learning functional programming. Its syntax is makes fp concepts extremely clear and concise. But Haskell is very rarely used in industry compared to Ocaml/F#/SML or Elixir/Erlang. I dont think its a good idea to compare the Lisp family to regular fp languages as everything about Lisp is tied to metaprogramming. Lisp is a DSL for making DSLs.
>>51757648
>codes
