Introducing PureScript Erlang back end

Re:Introducing PureScript Erlang back end by didibus on Thursday February 02, 2017 @06:39PM (#13556122)

We can't predict that, and maybe it will one day, but I think that's unlikely. Academics will continue to want and extend Haskell more and more, and it'll enter into a conflict I believe between pushing the typed lambda programming paradigm further into research territory and having a slow and stable industry base that favors backwards compatibility, stability and performance.

There might be a way to have both sustainably, but I'm not sure why we'd want that.

I really wouldn't mind seeing Haskell continue to innovate and be a trial for innovative features, and have another slower Haskell like language which slowly and carefully brings back those features into itself once they've been proven mature enough.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing PureScript Erlang back end by thelambentonion on Thursday February 02, 2017 @11:14PM (#13557618)

> having a slow and stable industry base that favors backwards compatibility, stability and performance

I feel as if GHC addresses backwards compatibility and stability fairly well with new language features being gated by language pragmas. [1]

I don't write much Haskell in production, and what I do write isn't very performance intensive, but GHC's been pretty impressive vs. other compilers with languages at a similar level of abstraction.

[1] Foldable/Traversable in Prelude was a relatively large breaking change, and it was handled in a way that minimized the impact to existing code while still advancing the language.

[ Parent | on HN ]