[Haskell-cafe] Comments from OCaml Hacker Brian Hurt
thestonetable at gmail.com
Fri Jan 16 23:11:50 EST 2009
Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Cory Knapp wrote:
>> As far as I know, one of the draws of Haskell is the inherent
>> mathematical nature of it.
> It's also simultaneously one of the biggest things that puts people off.
> Perhaps as we can curb this with sufficient documentation, as others
> have suggested.
Actually, that was part of my point: When I mention Haskell to people,
and when I start describing it, they're generally frightened enough by
the focus on pure code and lazy evaluation-- add to this the inherently
abstract nature, and we can name typeclasses "cuddlyKitten", and the
language is still going to scare J. R. Programmer. By "inherently
mathematical nature", I didn't mean names like "monoid" and "functor", I
meant *concepts* like monoid and functor. Not that either of them are
actually terribly difficult; the problem is that they are terribly
abstract. That draws a lot of people (especially mathematicians), but
most people who aren' drawn by that are hugely put off-- whatever the
name is. So, I guess my point is that the name is irrelevant: the
language is going to intimidate a lot of people who are intimidated by
At the same time, I think everyone is arguing *for* better
documentation. And you're probably right: better documentation will
bring the abstract nonsense down to earth somewhat.
>> But there's a deeper problem here, one that can't be resolved inside
>> the Haskell community. The problem is that the "Math?! Scary! Gross!"
>> attitude that's so pervasive in our society is hardly less pervasive
>> in the computer subculture.
> No arguments here!
> However, that at least *is* completely beyond our power to alter.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe