News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Haskell in Production: The good, the bad, and the ugly by rednum on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @04:31AM (#4721763)
That's right, I've changed my comment to be more relevant reply, sorry for confusion.

> If you see the compiler forcing you to always use Maybe as an advantage, good for you. Personally, I don't see it as a big deal.

One of reasons I like Maybe is I can accidentally put null somewhere I know I should not; Haskell's type system will prevent me from that. I wouldn't use Maybe unless I really need to - whereas in languages with less strict type systems, almost everything is a 'Maybe'. Besides, it seems it's easier to build some layer on abstraction on it, which you can reuse and save some time (for example, you have monad instance for it - however I don't think I've ever used it).

Re:Haskell in Production: The good, the bad, and the ugly by irahul on Thursday November 01, 2012 @01:13AM (#4726310)
> whereas in languages with less strict type systems, almost everything is a 'Maybe'

I don't know Haskell(I do know F#), so help me with this: How is everything not a Maybe in Haskell? In the languages I know, when you return an object from a method, (it can throw an Exception or return null) or return a valid val. When it throws an Exception, there is no Maybe, or else it's a Maybe. How is it any different in Haskell.