[Haskell-cafe] Is Haskell a Fanatic?

[Miguel Mitrofanov]

Well, since he thinks we're fanatics, getting a strong emotional  
reaction from us is something one certainly wouldn't desire.

On 4 Dec 2009, at 21:14, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:

> Sebastian,
>
> It helps if you think of John as having already won in this  
> discussion, since he succeeded in getting a lengthy high-noise  
> emotional reaction from us.  :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Greg
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:09 PM, John D. Earle <JohnDEarle at cox.net>  
>> wrote:
>> See "[Haskell-cafe] Optimization with Strings ?" for background.
>>
>> Don Stewart wrote, "the guarantees of purity the type system  
>> provides are extremely
>> useful for verification purposes". My response to this is in  
>> theory. This is what caught my attention initially, but the  
>> language lacks polish and does not appear to be going in a  
>> direction where it shows signs where it will self-correct. It may  
>> even be beyond repair. I care about others and I don't want people  
>> to be misled.
>>
>> I am already well aware of the numbers. They do not impress me. I  
>> have written on this already. I have given Haskell the benefit of  
>> the doubt and said, What's wrong with being uncompromising? There  
>> is something wrong with it, if it has taken you off the path of  
>> truth. This is not uncompromising. This is something else. It is  
>> called fanaticism and this is the opinion that I have come to after  
>> due consideration.
>>
>> If you are going to argue your case, be constructive. Tell me how  
>> the type system is not flawed and how the Haskell language is  
>> rigorous. What proof do you have of this? Explain to me how Haskell  
>> has been merely uncompromising in its pursuit of perfection and did  
>> not manage to step over the threshold into fanaticism. Please  
>> remain on topic and on point.
>>
>> I honestly don't understand what your beef is. Could you explain  
>> what you mean with some specifics? In what way does Haskell lack  
>> polish? What makes you think it's not going in a direction where it  
>> will self correct?
>> What's the "path of truth" and in what way is Haskell not on it?
>>
>> I would very much appreciate if you could try to explain what you  
>> mean using specific examples. I read the other thread and the post  
>> of yours didn't really seem to make much sense to me there either.
>>
>> -- 
>> Sebastian Sylvan
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe