> then they won't be compelled away from what actually matters – the engineering.
Maybe it is, to the extend that playing with lego blocks authorised by the lego corporation is considered engineering. That, of course, is a silly line to draw for defining the discipline.
> we all have way more fun diving deep into crafting the perfect type in Haskell
What Haskell allows you to do in practice is defining required and missing control flows (for solving your problems) as types[0], and constraining those types with rules that define your business domains the control flows must operate in. That is the actual engineering, as opposed to joining plastic bricks.
> What Haskell allows you to do in practice is defining required and missing control flows
It allows that in theory, at least, certainly. That's the whole reason for its existence. But in practice, developers become enamoured with the language and start to forget about the problem. If that weren't a problem we'd all be using Haskell, but back in the real world.
The reason we’re not all using Haskell is because like any language it has pros and cons and isn’t the best choice for every niche. Not because “developers become enamored with the language and start to forget about the problem”.
Anyway, why do Go fans always reach for the Haskell strawman in discussions like this? Most mainstream languages are not nearly as exotic as Haskell, while also not being intentionally crippled like Go. But for some reason Go fans always want to compare it to Haskell.
Even JavaScript, Python and Java are not allergic to adding modern features like iterator map/filter/etc., do you think those are esoteric ivory tower languages too?
> The reason we’re not all using Haskell is because like any language it has pros and cons and isn’t the best choice for every niche.
Exactly. Thanks for reiterating.
> Anyway, why do Go fans always reach for the Haskell strawman in discussions like this?
What's a Go fan? Someone who thinks that Go blows? That is as bizarre as becoming enamoured by a language. What leads one to have feelings about a language anyway? It is an impossible to understand concept for me.
> Even JavaScript, Python and Java are not allergic to adding modern features like iterator map/filter/etc.
In what world are patterns from the 1960s "modern"? Do you consider selt belts in cars to also be a modern feature?
> What leads one to have feelings about a language anyway?
Not a single person reading this thread believes that you are a coolly detached rational observer
Responding to an argument by not only pretending not to have an opinion, but pretending not to understand the concept of having an opinion, is a very interesting rhetorical strategy. Not sure it works
> Not a single person reading this thread believes that you are a coolly detached rational observer
All one of them?
> Responding to an argument by not only pretending not to have an opinion
The "argument" has only ever been about sharing of that which we understand as fact. One can present a case for why an apparent fact is not factual – mistakes and misinformation can, indeed, slip in – but what is fact would not rest on one's feelings towards it. The story of Go is the same whether you love it, hate it, ascribe no emotion towards it, or even if you have never heard of it before.
> but pretending not to understand the concept of having an opinion
Feeling and opinion traditionally do not imply the exact same thing – they are different words for a reason – so it is not clear if you misspoke, don't recognize a difference, or if you are trying to change the subject, but I will, for the sake of quality, assume the former. While I can understand feelings in some contexts, like feelings towards people, I have no idea why an inanimate programming language would conjure feelings? That is like developing feelings towards a grain of sand you found on the beach, which I don't understand either.
I am not about to claim nobody develops feelings for inanimate programming languages. Humans are varieitied and can do all sorts of weird and wonderful things, but that does not imply I understand it. Feel free to explain it, though. That's the beauty of not understanding something: You get to learn!
I mean, that's why I also asked last time. Surely you're not one of those anti-education types?
> Not sure it works
Okay, cool. Is this some kind of problem, or why are you mentioning it?
Maybe it is, to the extend that playing with lego blocks authorised by the lego corporation is considered engineering. That, of course, is a silly line to draw for defining the discipline.
> we all have way more fun diving deep into crafting the perfect type in Haskell
What Haskell allows you to do in practice is defining required and missing control flows (for solving your problems) as types[0], and constraining those types with rules that define your business domains the control flows must operate in. That is the actual engineering, as opposed to joining plastic bricks.
[0] https://hackage.haskell.org/package/foldl-1.4.17/docs/Contro...