Haskell Researchers Announce Discovery of Industry Programmer Who Gives a Shit
140 points? Really?<p>I know it's fashionable in these parts to make fun of Haskell, but it's just not <i>funny</i> unless the writer knows something about the language. Would you upvote these articles?<p>* Why C++ is More Object-Oriented Than Smalltalk<p>* Stupid Ivory-Tower Academics Claim "Perl Is Too Slow for Weather Simulation"<p>* LISP: It Would Be a Lot More Useful Without All the Parentheses<p>It's especially galling considering pg's various articles on language expressiveness; remember this quote, folks?<p>"""As long as our hypothetical Blub programmer is looking down the power continuum, he knows he's looking down. Languages less powerful than Blub are obviously less powerful, because they're missing some feature he's used to. But when our hypothetical Blub programmer looks in the other direction, up the power continuum, he doesn't realize he's looking up. What he sees are merely weird languages. He probably considers them about equivalent in power to Blub, but with all this other hairy stuff thrown in as well. Blub is good enough for him, because he thinks in Blub."""<p>When somebody tosses around phrases like <i>how to subvert Haskell's type system to accomplish basic shit you can do in other languages</i>, it's a big red flag that they've never used Haskell, and possibly have never even seen Haskell code.