ardz

Of course you can leak space in every turing complete language even on purpose, but in case of languages with lazy evaluation (like Haskell) you are no longer able to trivially reason about your programs behavior until execution on real data in real environment.

I agree that Haskell has some good (old) ideas and it is pleasant to Sunday programmers.

Unit test will not detect everything. You need real data under heavy load for Haskell. This is a _fact_.

Most of you here should stop writing BS about Haskell and how it is going to save the world.

> I never said that. Your argument was that this is specific to Haskell which is not.

It is specific to lazily evaluated languages, especially Haskell. To test Haskell program you will need a real environment under heavy load - maybe Google or Amazon could afford it. Tiny unit tests which are perfect for strictly evaluated languages won't detect these kid of bugs.

Telling that king is naked also sounds like FUD.

Really? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21097051/kinds-of-bugs-th...

Another Haskell SPAM.

How can anyone seriously code in a language which introduces new kind of bugs which cannot be detected by any test until running in production on real data when it is already too late?

First rule of privacy: keep private things private. Second rule of privacy: if two people know then everybody knows.

For a few seconds I thought someone created something better than Rebol/Red.

Do not wish, make it.

I'm able to hack fully working UI without restarting my app in minutes while you are still clicking at your first 'button' in XML. Startup time is very slow, but Android nature makes it 'faster' next time, because Android does not terminate applications on exit by default.

So don't lie that 'it is not suited'. There are some fools that actually use it.

Clojure joke:

'knock knock!'

- Who's there?

'minute of silence'

'Knock Knock!'

- Who's there!?

'another minute of silence'

- Java

- Why did you knock twice?

- I didn't, but some other suspicious guy is standing here with raised arm and mouth open.

Based on my recent Clojure on Android experience.

First rule of maintanence: readable code. I should be able to read code after short introduction. I remember it took me 1h (after Sussman lecture video) to read Lisp. It is several weeks now since I'm reading Haskell tutorials and docs and still have problems to understand code advertised as "what real world Haskell looks like".

It is the only language I know of which makes trivial problems hard and hard problems impossible.

Because of its syntax you have to write 10x as much documentation, as experiment shows and I can confirm this from my own experience. Haskell is full of BS.

I found it here: http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Example_code

Description is rather clear: "To get a feel for what real world Haskell looks like..."

Haskell's code is not far away from APL. Lots of Haskell code uses single letters instead of descriptive names. This makes it a lot harder to read and forces lengthy documentation:

reverse (PS x s l) = unsafeCreate l $ \p -> withForeignPtr x $ \f -> c_reverse p (f `plusPtr` s) (fromIntegral l)

form http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/bytest...

People who write code like this should be banned. Code should be written in a way to be easily read by people, not a compiler. This is not a coincidence that there are 500 lines of documentation. This is how typical Haskell code looks like.

I have no such problems. Think/hack/try first, code later - this is my advice to you.

Pen and paper are my debugging tools, not a type system.

Haskell vs Lisp, development time (h): 10 vs 3

This hard fact says more than thousand committee reviews.

What a piece of garbage.

Well, I don't even put my successful commercial projects in my resume to do not encourage competition.

Yes and no. Yes because of Python 2.x. and yes because it is an imperative language which got stuck in the 1990's.

No if you want to write quick and dirty scripts or just learn OO-ish (OO - object oriented) programming language. OO-ish fashion is coming to an end. Im writing OO-ish because Python is not fully OO language.

Yes because of new languages like Rust, Clojure, Go. A lot of programmers moved to Clojure because of it's simple syntax and a lot of libraries which can extend language without waiting (sometimes years long) for a committee. Just look at http://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1tyawn/what_are_feature... - this shouldn't be happening. Python version: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1017621/why-isnt-python-v...

In my opinion Python has stalled as a language and there is no future for it maybe except for some quick dirty scripts.

Lisp was and still is a safe bet. Languages come and go, fashions change, but in case of Lisp it is a matter of a few macros and a library to catch up. Other ex-fad languages need a committee and long years to evolve.

Because this IDE is built on top of Haskell ecosystem I have a serious problem to see the bright future of it regardless of its license.

I mean:

- IDE should have an integrated compiler.

- IDE should download only necessary libaries or functions needed by a program(from central repository, local or remote).

- IDE should catch a bug and allow me to fix it while program is running.

- IDE where I am able to fix a bug on my clients phone or his wrist watch remotely without the need to download whole Haskell Platform there. No JS/HTML5 BS.

There are 3 things that will kill a project almost instantly at the beginning: bad design, bad implementation, bad license.

I don't know about the first two but GPL is not a good choice.