Hacker News Reader

Sounds like you perhaps have experience of dynamically-typed languages? Haskell is statically typed, compiled, has a scalable multi-threaded runtime, a very good FFI; and was designed around the notion that large programs should be built by composing small programs.

View on HN

I tend to prefer eager ML languages vs Haskell. Some lazy abstractions are a bit leaky. Performance might degrade and it's really hard to debug.

Laziness is nice, but not by default perhaps.

It's not difficult to enforce strictness in Haskell in the places where it matters.

Globalized type inferrence is still a problem when you want to build large programs. You change the implementation of one function and 20 functions further there is a problem and you need to figure out all the interactions on the path between. Rust strikes a great compromise here IMO.

I think that these days the Haskell best practices recommend adding a type annotation to all toplevel declarations, to help keep error messages manageable.

Sort of sounds like the interfaces/components/boundaries/separation of concerns in your modules isn't up to scratch. This is more of an org issue around management as opposed to the language unless you think rust has a set of fetaurs that help with this

Reply on news.ycombinator.com