[Haskell-cafe] What is your favourite Haskell "aha" moment?
aquagnu at gmail.com
Sat Jul 14 07:17:43 UTC 2018
I agreed with most of your the arguments.
Yes, Python has serious problem with modules locking mechanism in multi-process apps. And GIL. But it’s trade-off. And also not all Python implementations have GIL.
> "Real programmers can write FORTRAN code in any language."
The same with my example of read monad usage 😉 No problem to avoid manipulation of global state in a way which leads to spaghetti-code.
> Once the FSM holds more than a dozen states, these advantages evaporate.
This is point only where I can not agree. I used FSM with hundreds states/transitions. It was automatically generated, I only check them. Also I know that in car automatics FSM are widely used (BMW, Mercedes, Audi). Also it’s using in software for space industry widely. My IMHO is: FSM is most reliable way to do soft without bugs. Also it’s easy to verify them (for example, with transitions’ assertions)
From: Joachim Durchholz
Sent: 13 июля 2018 г. 22:08
To: haskell-cafe at haskell.org
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is your favourite Haskell "aha" moment?
Am 13.07.2018 um 09:54 schrieb PY:
> 13.07.2018 09:47, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>> Am 13.07.2018 um 01:40 schrieb Tony Morris:
>>> On python, we are fixing it (WIP):
>> Some poisonous aspects of Python are unfixable.
>> E.g. having declarations as program-visible update to a global state
>> causes all kinds of unnecessary pain, such as having to deal with
>> half-initialized peer modules during module initialization.
> I never understand that point. Mostly Python programs have not global
> state, only global constants.
Well, try doing work on SymPy then.
I did. And I know for a fact that your idea is completely wrong; Python
has a lot of global state, first and foremost all its modules and the
data that lives inside them.
> Also OOP has long been solved "global state" problem, for example,
> Smalltalk (similar idea you can find in Erlang): state is hidden
> behind some FSM which is represented as class (process in Erlang).
No amount of TLAs will solve the issues with mutable global state.
Actually the Digg story was having mutable global state, in the form of
a default parameter. Now that's insiduous.
> You can not change state anywhere, you can only send message.
If the responses depend on the history of previous message sends, you
have mutable state back, just by another name.
> FSM guards you from any errors. Even more, FSM-style is super safe and
> robust: you can visualize its behavior, to develop it very quickly, to
> debug it easy, final code usually does not contain errors even...
This all holds only for trivial FSMs.
Once the FSM holds more than a dozen states, these advantages evaporate.
> Even I can imagine read monad with big record inside with a lot of
> fields, flags, etc and to get absolutely the same spaghetti code with
> flags manipulation and testing in Haskell, but under monad ;)
"Real programmers can write FORTRAN code in any language."
Except that it's not idiomatic.
> Interesting here is that there are a big enterprise products written in
> Python and they are very useful:
Sure. Except they do not use some features, such as lists in default
parameters, or face the consequences (as the Digg story demonstrates).
Which means that this feature is conceptually broken. Except Python
can't fix it by mandating that default parameters need to be read-only,
which is impossible because Python has no hard-and-fast way to mark
read-only objects as such. (Read-only means: ALL function calls must
ALWAYS return the same results given equal arguments. With additional
constraints on argument behaviour vs. constness, but that's a pretty big
can of worm to define properly.)
Also, such companies use extra-lingual process to get the modularization
under control. Such as conventions, patterns, style guidelines - and woe
to the company where a programmer accidentally broke them.
Finally, that "but large software IS successfully written in unsuitable
languages" argument never held water. Entire operating systems have been
written in assembly language, and are still being written in C. Which is
a horrible misdecision from a reliability perspective, but it's being
done, and the inevitable security holes are being duct-taped to keep the
infrastructure limping along.
Which the large companies are doing, too. They just make enough money to
keep that infrastructure going. The same goes for Linux BTW, they have
enough paid^Wsponsored engineers to solve all the problems they're having.
The Haskell community does not have the luxury of excess engineers that
can hold all the ripped-up steel together with duct tape.
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe