<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">13.07.2018 02:52, Brett Gilio wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e7f16c13-4624-2fad-587e-038c8b9e98a3@posteo.net">On
07/12/2018 06:46 AM, PY wrote:
<br>
written in Websharper and in any Haskell framework. Haskell is
beauty
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">but I'm afraid its fate unfortunately will
be the same as one of Common Lisp, NetBSD, etc - it's ground for
ideas and experiments and has disputable design. Also it's
more-more difficult to teach children to Haskell than to F#...
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://jackfoxy.github.io/DependentTypes/">https://jackfoxy.github.io/DependentTypes/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/caindy/DependentTypesProvider">https://github.com/caindy/DependentTypesProvider</a><br>
Discussion: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15852517">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15852517</a><br>
<br>
Also F# has F* ;)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e7f16c13-4624-2fad-587e-038c8b9e98a3@posteo.net">I
wonder if this is simply a result of the marketing of the
language, itself, rather than the strength of the language. I
agree, F# has a lot of beauty, but there remain many things that
Haskell has a leg up on that F# lacks, like dependent types</blockquote>
IMHO there are several reasons:<br>
<br>
1. Haskell limits itself to lambda-only. Example, instead to add
other abstractions and to become modern MULTI-paradigm languages, it
keeps lambda, so record accessors leading to names collision will
lead to adding of 1,2 extensions to the language instead to add
standard syntax (dot, sharp, something similar). So, point #1 is
limitation in abstraction: monads, transformers, anything - is
function. It's not good. There were such languages already: Forth,
Joy/Cat, APL/J/K... Most of them look dead. When you try to be
elegant, your product (language) died. This is not my opinion, this
is only my observation. People like diversity and variety: in food,
in programming languages, in relations, anywhere :)<br>
<br>
2. When language has killer app and killer framework, IMHO it has
more chances. But if it has <u>killer ideas</u> only... So, those
ideas will be re-implemented in other languages and frameworks but
with more simple and typical syntax :) It's difficult to compete
with product, framework, big library, but it's easy to compete with
ideas. It's an observation too :-) You can find it in politics for
example. Or in industry. To repeat big solution is more difficult,
but we are neutrally to languages, language itself is not argument
for me. Argument for me (I am usual developer) are killer
apps/frameworks/libraries/ecosystem/etc. Currently Haskell has stack
only - it's very good, but most languages has similar tools (not all
have LTS analogue, but big frameworks are the same).<br>
</body>
</html>