Haskell is our first choice for building production software systems

Re: Haskell is our first choice for building production soft... by jhayward on Monday January 11, 2021 @01:33PM (#25733569)

I got the idea by following the Rust tutorials and then making 'simple' programs, seeing the errors, going to Rust resources and getting the advice 'just cut and paste the expected type'. The expected types generally had 6-8 ':'s, and three to four deep nested type specifiers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re: Haskell is our first choice for building production soft... by Rusky on Monday January 11, 2021 @06:24PM (#25739547)

If a significant part of those types was just something like `std::collections::` or similar then I'm not sure I see the problem.

Suggestions should probably trim redundant prefixes like that, but recognizing standard library namespaces shouldn't be a big obstacle to understanding either.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re: Haskell is our first choice for building production soft... by jhayward on Tuesday January 12, 2021 @10:06AM (#25747808)

I haven't been back to rust since, so I don't have the specifics. But it was clear to me that this was not a helpful way to program.

It was also crystal clear that, like C++, Rust puts many barriers to true abstraction. You have to know many, many details of how a specific type is implemented, sometimes several levels deep, to correctly use it at a high level. The cognitive overhead is enormous.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re: Haskell is our first choice for building production soft... by Rusky on Tuesday January 12, 2021 @11:50AM (#25749516)

In Rust's target domain(s), those details often turn out to be quite relevant.

Hiding them basically amounts to targeting a different domain. This is very different from being irrelevant and noisy.

[ Parent | on HN ]