Cue quarterly #Haskell community meltdown

To be fair, I think Haskell will continue to fill the niche it filled ~10 years ago, around the time it started to get mainstream hype. Small teams of skilled devs delivering robust products that would normally require much larger teams to maintain will continue to prevail. Purely functional lazy programming was never bound for world domination in an economy which is antagnostic to curiosity, creativity and truths.

On the other hand, I have the feeling that we're going to see more and more Haskellers-turned-Rustaceans come to realize that #Rust does little to alleviate the primary barrier to Haskell's wider success -- fast and predictable turnaround time for projects developing cutting-edge technologies -- and will wind up going the same route as some major Haskell projects such as #Unison and #Idris have in recent years, which is to try #Chez Scheme, only to discover that it allows them to release blazing fast functional programs on a generic foundation where major breaking changes are practically non-existent, providing incredible flexibility while significantly reducing dependencies by dint of the ad-hoc tooling that falls out of the bottom of #scheme. Not to mention the joys that come from near-instant startup times, some of the fastest compile time you've ever encountered, fully-customizable interactive development and a surgical #debugger that rivals Haskell in scheer fun. Yesterdays naysayers will become tomorrow's enthusiastic bootstrappers. Or a at least a boy can dream.

That said, in all seriousness I don't think Scheme will ever reach the heights of Haskell's moderate commercial success. But I do think that projects built on Scheme, like Unison, will get a leg up and eventually surpass it, and interest in #lisp will only grow.

nitter.net/graninas/status/165

Follow

@rml Scheme suffers from the same thing all lisps sufferer from a syntax based on long irritating strings of parentheses.

@antares I was anti-parenthesis when I only used it for elisp and didn't take lisp seriously.

since I read SICP and got into scheme I've become a total convert, and now think programming without parenthesis is just a major disadvantage. they improve and simplify every aspect of programming, and in scheme lead to the prettiest code I've ever seen. for example, see screenshot; parentheses are the shit.

@antares @rml
I don't think Lisp programmers would call that "suffering".

On the contrary, syntax of non-Lisp programming languages seems to be confined to text, whereas that of Lisp gives a hope for a general-purpose structural editor, like the one I'm making:

functional.cafe/@PaniczGodek/1

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.