Why Learning to Code Is So Hard – and Why It Gets Easier

Re:Why Learning to Code Is So Hard – and Why It Gets Easier by michaelochurch on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @07:38PM (#4751620)

Haskell is painful for "real" programming because people have been doing "real" programming in C-like languages for decades, whereas the state of the art for a lazily-evaluated, extremely statically-typed functional language influenced by category theory is still a bit immature.

Haskell is a great language, but I understand hesitancy on taking it into production.

Clojure and Scala are a joy to work with. Scala's problem is Java-culture hangover but the language itself is excellent (and may be what you're looking for in "a more powerful OCaml", although I'm not sure I'd describe it quite that way).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Learning to Code Is So Hard – and Why It Gets Easier by codewright on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @07:55PM (#4751678)

>and may be what you're looking for in "a more powerful OCaml"

Scala is neat, but the time I couldn't get sbt to run because it kept running out of memory, after having had no trouble with it for months, I decided it was time to rm -rf my scala install.

I have a lot more background with Clojure (Lisps, really) anyway. I'd enjoy something with a more informative/helpful type system but Scala and Haskell are too broken, irritating, and unproductive for me.

For people like KirinDave who've crested that mountain with Haskell, more power to them.

I have to ship product ASAP and don't have time to wrangle with parser combinators just to read some XML though.

[ Parent | on HN ]