Fwd: [Haskell-cafe] Haskell as a religion

[Alberto G. Corona]

But many features need other features. For example, the option to use
referential transparency will be common in future languages for multicore
programming purposes.  This creates the problem of separating
side-effect-free code from side-effect code. For this purpose, a strong type
system at compile time is needed, which indeed need automatic type inference
or, else, the user will be too busy with the details. The type inference
open the door for experimenting with complex data types. class types is a
logical step after that. Monads are the best option for many problems once
the programmer have all te above. higuer order functions are being taken
seriously in other languages. this goes to the need of currying and  lists.
optional lazyness and tail recursion is the most elegant option for
expressing lists managing code. Will all the above, explicit loops will be
avoided by the programmer, this will end up in mode declarative programming
style.
I think that once the average programmer start to use one or two of these
features, he will feel a bit frustrated if its language don´t have all the
others, specially if he know haskell. Probably, he will use haskell for fun.
This is the best way for the takeover of the industry, because this has been
so historically.

2008/12/18 John Goerzen <jgoerzen at complete.org>

Andrew Coppin wrote:
> > Don Stewart wrote:
> >> I think of Haskell more as a revolutionary movement
> >
> > LOL! Longest revolution EVER, eh? I mean, how long ago was its dogma
> > first codified? ;-)
>
> Lisp has been around for how long now?  Measured in decades.   We don't
> even have our version of a Symbolics machine yet!
>
> > Basically, Haskell will never be popular, but its coolest ideas will be
> > stolen by everybody else and passed off as their own. :-(
>
> Well, in a sense, if that happens, we would have won, right?  We'd have
> created a situation where "paradigm shift" would mean more than just a
> buzzword on some CEO's presentation slide ;-)
>
> In another sense, isn't this what Haskell was explicitly created to do?
>  (Combine ideas from a bunch of similar languages into one standard one)
>
> Some ideas in Haskell are easy to integrate into other languages: see
> list comprehensions in Python.  I don't see Perl picking up pervasive
> laziness anytime soon, nor Python compile-time type inference.
>
> -- John
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20081218/78c7a204/attachment.htm