Two Haskellers enter a bar. Two hours later both leave more confused than when they entered.
This is what got me with Haskell. Any question is derailed into theory to the point where getting anything done is difficult.
This is what got me with Haskell. Any question is derailed into theory to the point where getting anything done is difficult.
It's not that bad. Honestly the only reason we shipped it was because the prototype I did in it worked too well.
I had a backup almost ready in time written in C++ in case it got too tricky for others to maintain, and it was a simple component in a larger software stack.
I want to make things not argue about the best, or most technically correct, way to make them.
Personally, I consider it more complex to have to think about what side effects every piece of code has and what order things are evaluated in. The fact that I don't have to worry about these things in Haskell is a breath of fresh air for me. Also, not having to deal with the complexity of OOP when an ordinary function will do.
I think it's a misconception that Haskell is more complex than whatever popular OOP language people are using. It just looks more complex because it's less familiar (which I think is a problem with what we teach students in school).
This is a problem I have at work. Everyone here thinks unfamiliar and hard / complex are synonyms. They aren't!
Well, not all programming languages are for all people, and there are people who prefer the theoretical approach. Calling that an obsession with complexity is, I think, unfair, or at least inaccurate.