The Haskell job market has been growing steaily since 2008
github.com
github.com
If so then we should look at the slope of the graph for 'growth', and it in fact appears to have flattened recently.
And further, as the size of the market increases, you'd naturally expect more postings, if only because of churn.
Are they definitely different jobs, new positions? It could be a handful of people are rotating around a handful of jobs that then need to advertise every few months.
I mean, it's extremely likely that there are more Haskell programmers employed now than in 2008, but IMHO this doesn't show it very clearly, and doesn't show that the market is now growing.
To me there seems to be some irony in that some nice pure stats about Haskell programmers seem so ungrounded.
The second graph shows the number of job posts per year, and it seems to reflect the bigger macro-economic situation: dip during pandemic, and a slight drop after 2022. I think these features are not specific to Haskell, just showing that the Haskell segment also follows some bigger trend.
Either the term "cumulative" is being used incorrectly, or different rules are being used to classify available jobs in each graph.
Maybe the first chart is filtering out duplicates?
They are screenshots of the linked Google sheet, which has the raw data and graph formulas.
Note there is one "sheet" per diagram (sheet switcher at the bottom inside Google sheets).
No.
When you count events, each one contributes a count of 1. The running sum of that is sequence 0, 1, 2, 3 ...
The meaning is "how many job postings have posted until time T.
I think we waited too long to ship our initial prototype to customers, but a big part of that was that we were pretty sloppy in our product management at that stage of the company (I think we had closed the A about a year ago, and did not yet have our first dedicated PM), and our technical rewrite was also partially a feature and UX rewrite. It's been several years since, and we have clawed our way out of that hole, and I think our delivery process is actually in a really good place now.
If I were to give advice to people looking at adopting new languages, I would say to get it into production ASAP. I believe the keyword to search for is the "tracer bullet pattern". One of my favorite blog posts on this is https://blog.thepete.net/blog/2019/10/04/hello-production/
Off the top of my head, 3 advantages stood out:
1. First, if you're not going that far off the beaten low-level path, Haskell has incredible productivity benefits. Effect tracking has enormous benefits for testability and understandability. If you've ever been down a debugging rabbit hole shaped like "there's no way this logging call is sending that API request", then you might be pleasantly surprised to discover that you can statically guarantee that this doesn't occur in Haskell programs! Pattern matching, algebraic data types (sum types!), and typeclass derivation make it much easier to make it impossible to construct invalid representations of data. Other languages are finally picking this up, but their versions of pattern matching often have caveats for backwards-idiom-compatibility. And monads are a very powerful abstraction. It's like being able to write your own semantics for async-await (I've talked more about this before at https://lobste.rs/s/7cllte/monads_part_six_really_what_is_mo...).
2. Haskell was a good domain fit for us. One thing we build is the FOSSA CLI (https://github.com/fossas/fossa-cli/), which runs in customer CI pipelines to analyze their builds. It's a very compiler-shaped problem: shell out to some tools, do a lot of parsing, think very hard, and then spit out a JSON blob to send back to the API. Our first version of this was written in Go. At the time of development, writing correct, testable parsers in Go was like pulling teeth. We have a relatively small headcount-to-product-surface-area ratio, and our team was running up against the overhead of rewriting traverse in Go over and over again (that's a Haskell-flavored joke, but if you've ever been annoyed at writing yet another for-loop in Go, you get it). We decided to hack out a prototype in Haskell, and it turned out to be a good fit.
3. Lastly, the kind of people who wind up working at FOSSA and are interested in the code analysis bits tend to be the same kind of nerds who love Haskell. We had lots of people on our team who were chomping at the bit to try it, so we decided to try it out. I really can't understate how big of a productivity difference it makes when people are working with tools that they actually enjoy rather than are merely forcing themselves to use. It is night and day.
If you want to learn more, we also did an interview with Serokell on this topic (https://serokell.io/blog/haskell-in-production-fossa), and discussed it on an episode of our engineering podcast (https://fossa.com/blog/fossa-podcast-adopting-haskell/).
Or do you mean relative to Java?
I think Haskell and OCaml are popular in finance because they're high-level and familiar to math/quant types (who are broadly--and this is a sweeping generalization--more familiar with expressing algorithms in recursion than in procedural sequences).
I don't have much experience with OCaml, but I can also say that Haskell in particular has incredible support for building very high-level libraries that are both expressive and have strong compile-time guarantees. I've found it's relatively easier for a programming expert to build such a library and a domain expert to consume the library in Haskell than in many other languages I've seen (perhaps Python comes the closest, but that feels to me more like an ecosystem thing than a language thing).
[1] https://serokell.io/blog/haskell-in-production-standard-char...
Click on "Area" column header to sort.
Have you tried fp-ts ecosystem? Code written in it looks pretty similar to Haskell, but it's still the same language, and you can gradually adopt it in the codebase instead of re-writing the whole thing.
(I've also sent a question about personal professional development to your email from profile, hope this isn't abuse of your kindness here)
Overall, we found that fighting against the language this way was the worst of both worlds - you paid a non-trivial cost and did not gain enough benefit. But our original codebase also predated TypeScript (remember TLDRLegal? That's us!), and much of our TS was bolted on after-the-fact on a pretty significant existing codebase that was written in very idiomatic JS. A team with more resources to do technical refactoring (we were quite small and very focused on building product) or starting from scratch may have a different experience.
Re: development process - it's very similar to development in other languages. Write, compile, yell at compiler, push, complain about how slow CI is, deploy. You know, the usual.
I think the most interesting difference is the _onboarding_ curve. Haskell's curve is pretty brutal, although I think most of this is because of bad pedagogy (many monad tutorials are bad, and beginners can't tell) rather than because of intrinsically difficult concepts. Some observations:
1. Empirically, zero to code review is roughly six weeks for a professional industry software engineer. It's not that much longer than other languages we've had to teach. But it _feels_ very brutal because zero to side project is roughly three or four weeks. Contrast this against Go, where zero to side project is about five minutes.
2. Having an experienced Haskell engineer on your team to start with makes a WORLD of a difference. You've gotten a type error - why? Is it because GHC is doing weird backwards type inference stuff again? Or is it because you've misunderstood this fundamental concept? Or is it because you've done a typo, and GHC has inferred a downstream site to be a type error? This sort of thing is very difficult to explain in words and in general, and much easier to pick up through experience and mentorship. If you do not have an experienced Haskeller at your disposal, I would strongly recommend starting with side projects first, and using the Functional Programming Slack (fpslack.com), who are some of the friendliest and most patient folks I've had the pleasure of talking to.
It appears monads truly are something you can either understand or explain, but not both.
I find it suspicious. I mean, plenty of Haskell devs out there, surely it's not that hard?
A Maybe monad just says the value may be Something(x) or Nothing. You won't know until you run the computation. If you use flatmap and give a function that takes an x and gives a Maybe[x], the monad will first map into Maybe[Maybe[x]] and then flatten into Maybe[x]. The computation has not happened until you execute it and internally all the functions have been composed together.
A List[A] just says, give me a function A->List[B], and I will flatmap (flatten `compose` map) it. So it maps each element into a possibly empty list of Bs, and then flattens it by concatenating them.
You can define your own monads, and as long as they obey the laws of monads, you get a bunch of stuff for free.
Each monad constructs a type that behaves differently and expects different things, but in general; the monad is defined by a unit/point/return function which brings a value into the monadic context, and a flatMap function aka bind, which further breaks down to “flatten after map”.
So List[_] is a type constructor, given a type T, it produces a List[T], which defines some transformations. Return creates a single element list, and flatmap takes the A->[B] applies it everywhere and then concatenates.
The nice thing about the wrapper analogy is that even though it is technically wrong, it is easier for people to get it because it follows naturally from OOP and it is a sufficiently useful mental model imho.
But then there are always people who start popping in and pointing out how those definitions aren't quite right. Which is true. But does it matter *for practical purposes* to give a dev a useful for now mental model that they can then use to figure the rest out later? I'd say no.
In Haskell, a Monad is a type class with a method `bind`. In Scala that would be a `flatten` or whatever.
If a person who's asking doesn't yet know what the "type class" is, or how to read signatures, your "monad tutorial" would not make much sense anywat. Guide them to learn the prerequisites first.
Knowing some prehistory about doesn't affect usage. And metaphors are very tricky and personal.
The personal part is where the "monad tutorials" fall flat. They assume shared context which may or not may not be actually shared by a random reader on the internet. Yes, some monads are really about "wrapping a value" or whatever.
Reading a post using this metaphor when you want such a wrapping and/or deal with chaining wrappers regularly can bootstrap your understanding in no time. But if you're reading "wrapper"-flavored tutorial while dealing with "pipes" then the spell breaks, you end up confused, and another one joins the "monads are uncomprehensible" group.
Teaching is hard enough. Writing good tutorials is even harder. Successfully giving an universally good drive-by explanation is next to zero probability.
I suspect this is a knowledge variant of "XY problem" and you have to establish more context before answering.
And another problem that "what is a monad" is already a meme. Everyone has the burning desire to ask it, but usually there's no practical need for the answer. Without that confusion ensues. Or, even worse, a false understanding gets locked in and starts to proliferate, sustaining the memetic chain reaction.
Most tutorials go off the rails because they confuse types supporting this pattern with "being a monad". For example, arrays in JavaScript support the pattern through the `flatMap()` method, but saying "a JavaScript array is a monad" is misleading because most of what people do with arrays are unrelated to this.
As a pattern it is very general. It strings a sequence of functions together, but doesn't care about the semantics of the functions or the types involved, as long as each function just return the same generic type.
But many explanations take the semantics of how some particular types use the pattern and generalize from that. E.g. list and option types are monads, so monads are explained as containers. Or IO and State uses the pattern to represent side effects, so monads are explains as a way to have side effects in Haskell.
This is what leads to the bizarre metaphors, like monads are boxes, monads are spacesuits, monads are train-tracks etc. Each metaphor matches some uses of monads but breaks down on others.
Maybe (optionals) - chain steps and abort if any step is empty.
IO - perform IO side effects, and run the next step when this one completes. Just like a async/await.
You use monads all the time in other languages! Haskell just has many more kinds and allows the programmer to make their own.
I always twitch when I hear someone say you can’t both understand and teach them. Did I succeed?
Also note that you don’t have to totally understand monad machinery to use them productively, only to write your own.
> Maybe (optionals) - chain steps and abort if any step is empty.
Could this be (remotely) akin to the following shell pattern?
set -o pipefail
cmd1 | cmd2 | ...
Does it make any sense?
doStuff :: Maybe X
doStuff = do
r1 <- cmd1
r2 <- cmd2 r1
…
return rX
doStuff = cmd1 >>= cmd2 >>= …No you don't. You are confusing monads with features which can be implemented using monads. In Haskell monads are used for modeling side effects, but this is not the case in other languages. In Haskell exceptions are implemented using monads, but this is not the case in other languages.
After they’ve been working for a month or so, they’ll “get” monads on a gut level, and the details won’t be so confusing to them.
Explaining monads in terms of promises and futures will make a beginner associate them with asynchronous programming, which might make some sense for some monads. But now show such a beginner a simple list comprehension and explain it is also a monad, and I assure you they will be very confused! Explaining concatMap in terms of promises is a very convoluted way to explain something quite simple.
Haskell comes from a population that loves to understand things from the ground up, and most people learn by doing.
So, what if, instead of an abstract burrito metaphor, we taught people 4 monads: List, Maybe, State, and IO. We explain how do syntax does “something different” for each of them, and how IO is very similar to promises, but the others aren’t. Then we let them play with those for a few weeks, submit some PRs, let the panic of not understanding subside, and then teach them the theory?
Think about how JavaScript developers learn promises. They don’t understand how they work under the hood at all when they first start using them. Then, when they need to go deeper and look under the hood, that theory is connected to their practice, and makes much more sense to them.
Yes, I am on board with that.
What these languages don't have and Haskell does is a way to talk about all monads, all at once. Instead of
replicateM :: forall m a . Monad m => Int -> m a -> m [a]
replicateArray: <T>(count: number, ts: T[]) => T[][]
replicateFunction: <S, T>(count: number, f: (s: S) => T) => (s: S) => T[]
replicatePromise: <T>(count: number, t: Promise<T>) => Promise<T[]>
They're very general. Classes in OOP are general too — surely you can model lots of things with them — but a class always models a category of things with similar functionality, and an instance of that class is one of those things.
Monads are much more flexible than that. You can model nondeterminism with monads, as well as side-effects, exception-based error handling, state, (backtracking) search algorithms, and more. Could all of those things be an instance of the same OOP class? Surely not. Yet in Haskell, 'Monad' is just a "type class" (not dissimilar to an interface / abstract class in the OOP world).
Monad tutorials typically try to do one of the following things:
1. Try to explain the entirety of monads by giving a metaphor (burritos, anyone?) that only works for some of the instantiations of the pattern. It turns out to be hard to find a metaphor that covers all ground that Monad does, unsurprisingly. Personally I think this method is good, as long as you're honest about what it does not give you: an intuition for all Monad instances. It just gives you an intuition about some of them, but that could already be plenty to work with them usefully (and see 3. below).
2. Try to let the reader invent Monad by showing various instantiations and asking the reader to find the pattern. Personally I think this misses the point somewhat; yes, you can see the pattern, but that doesn't give any understanding per se. Why are those things similar, and why does it make sense to abstract over the idea?
3. Not actually explain, but instead say "work with them a bit and you'll understand soon enough". This is the one I'm most in favour of — after giving a special-purpose intuition for the monads you'll be working with as a beginner (IO, perhaps parser combinators, and not much else; perhaps lists (nondeterminism) to jump-start exploration into non-imperative monads).
Note that none of these give a nice and polished answer to what a monad is.
As alluded to above, the closest OOP equivalent to the kind of thing that Monad is, is a design pattern. It's a design pattern that can be encoded into a three-line definition in the language itself, and is super general.
TL;DR: Monads are Promises and async/await, but generalized to different implementations of `.then`.
You are right to be suspicious; it is _not_ that hard! I think people just get confused and overwhelmed because (1) there are many separate different concepts that are all being introduced at once, and (2) you need to learn a new debugging methodology at the same time. I think the vast majority of this problem is the huge deluge of bad teaching materials (especially monad tutorials written by people who do not use Haskell in production) and the shortage of good teaching materials.
Re: 1 - some separate, orthogonal concepts that I have seen people mix up while trying to teach Haskell:
1. Effect tracking (which is a thing that we _do_ using monads, but is not intrinsically tied to monads - this would be better served by being taught as "dependency injection but stricter")
2. Non-eager evaluation (which is a language runtime evaluation choice that Haskell has made, and which motivates the usage of monads where most languages have function bodies, but is again not intrinsically tied to monads)
3. "Purity" (a more confusing way to explain 1)
4. "Mutable state" (another thing we represent with monads, but again is not intrinsic to monads)
5. Monads the math / category theory concept (don't bother with teaching this - it will not be helpful until you have intuition for writing and operating the programs themselves first, which takes at least a few months to build, and even then it is mostly useful as a source of advanced techniques for library writers rather than application writers)
At work, we've developed our own set of educational materials for teaching folks the language. I'm working on externalizing them in my spare time.
We started from nothing in January, shipped the app last month.
We have 2.5 developers.
Can you elaborate the process? The only reference I could only find this: https://wiki.haskell.org/Android.
How did you end up developing/deploying your UI?
The process was learning Functional Reactive Programming, then learning reflex-frp, then getting a contract with obsidian (creators of reflex) for one hour a week where we could ask questions.
( https://github.com/reflex-frp/reflex-platform )
We had a grant requirement to create a phone client for Tahoe-LAFS, a Python application with a bunch of dependencies, including ZFEC, a forward error correction library.
( https://tahoe-lafs.readthedocs.io/ )
( https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/zfec/ )
We needed bug for bug compatibility with the Python codebase, so I ran Tahoe on localhost and tested the Haskell client against the Python server. We used servant to build the API, since it builds both client and server side from the same description.
I hope this helps
Should be named "private storage" when it does show up in the app store.
Even so, it won't be useful until you have a Tahoe-LAFS shared magic folder.
Hopefully we'll get funding to make a default shared folder for getting started!
1. mostly pair programming, so we all knew the current state of the codebase and the path forward
2. When we didn't understand something, we wrote a separate small prototype of that feature / library / reference to teach ourselves how it worked. ( async, monad transformers, lenses, many reflex features )
3. We paid Obsidian for a one hour a week meeting to help us when we couldn't figure it out by ourselves. ( https://obsidian.systems/ )
4. nix for cross compilation and build / dev automation
5. Several hours a week of explicit teaching each other what we knew. This might should go first in the list, as the culture of being open and teaching was a massive benefit. We had one hour a week where the nixpert taught nix, one hour a week where I taught beginning Haskell, another hour a week where I taught Advanced Haskell (things I was learning that might help). We also had two hours a week where we all got together and worked on the stickiest problem along the path to shipping.
Most software dev jobs I've had want me to "do the thing" and have zero time left over for teaching / training others. I wanted to take the opposite approach and this paid off far more than my already wild hopes.
Even more importantly, it tightens the loop between "write code, review code, change code, merge it finally" since you're basically doing all of that "at once" in the best case.
Thanks!
https://whetstone.private.storage/privatestorage/privatestor...
Dev environment was our laptops, obsidian's "ob run" is friendly and helpful (but doesn't work well with haskell-language-server).
Dev environment was also our Android phones.
We used nix for cross compilation and build automation, lucky for me the other main dev is really good at nix.
Since the original codebase is in Python, I would have used that if possible, but I spent eight weeks failing to load a shared object into a Python interpreter on Android. That got us to this past January.
I have had a Haskell job before, though I was entirely unfamiliar with Android dev.
In two days I was able to load a shared object into a Haskell interpreter on Android, so we tried that route.
What's your team workflow around designing the code ?
Do you follow mainstream ideas or do you have very special tricks (say innovation on top of property based testing.. metaprogramming.. whatever)
Re: design workflow - this is not very different from any other code. You have module interfaces, logical subsystems, separately deployable service entrypoints, etc. Our Haskell code tends to take special care to avoid statefulness and globals, but this is not any more of a design burden than writing idiomatic code in any other language (e.g. planning out your classes in Java).
Re: special tricks - we used fused-effects to model our effects, which has been pretty useful (it lets us delay teaching transformers), but this is by no means a secret that we've discovered.
I think the biggest trick is to write simple code. I think when you give a junior engineer a sufficiently powerful hammer (like Haskell and its effect tracking), they will attempt to nail absolutely everything to the wall (e.g. build a taxonomy of every possible effect and every possible exception and write your whole program in this framework for Maximum Compile Time Safety).
Avoid this. It's just not a productive use of time, and the gains to safety often are not worth the effort and velocity and overhead you paid to build the underlying framework. Focus on the high-ROI piece of the program. Write the effects that you would use for testing, do the rest in IO for now, and come back later if you find that you need more granularity in your effects. The important thing is to ship the product.
(I go into much more detail about this in the Serokell interview linked in the other HN comment.)
I consider it one of my larger mistakes. In hindsight the real problem was building the thing in isolation and then dumping it on someone else with minimal training time. I think different tools and languages are fine, but they need a bus factor of 2-3 to prevent this kind of stuff.
One of the motivations for adoption for us was strong interest on the team. Looking back on our team...
1. We started with me (enthusiast), our expert,and a Go developer with no Haskell experience.
2. Over time, at its peak, the team grew to us 3, Python developer who had dabbled, two Ruby developers who were interested but had no experience, a frontend expert who had dabbled, and another engineer who I didn't work with closely but I think had a background in Java?
3. Our expert left the team before or around the time that the last person (maybe-Java person) joined, I think.
4. On the second Haskell team I spun up, it's me, one person from the old team, a Ruby/JS developer, and a JS developer.
We were able to get all of these people productive in Haskell. It got easier once we had more experience teaching folks. There are a handful of _key differences_ between Haskell and ALGOL-family languages (mostly around evaluation model and effect tracking), and once you nail those down, the rest is pretty smooth sailing, and your SWE experience and intuition begins kicking in again.
Although we miss our expert very much every day (they were a very cool person! They drove a motorcycle!), their departure has not had an outsized impact on our velocity.
A sibling comment recommended a bus factor of 2-3. I think this is roughly correct, although I would think of this as not merely your "don't get hit by a bus" group, but also your core teaching group.
Do you guys use parsec in production? What is the motivation for having Haskell to be half of the codebase? (Are there some open-source domain-specific libraries that are used intensively? Or do you guys prefer to implement things in-house (on top of libs that are more abstract)?)
And if parsec is used in production, any tips on how to best design/debug parsec parsers? (Thanks!)
Lastly, in your experience, what are some of the best monads / design patterns to improve team productivity? :{
Really curious about it
That graph which is shown above the fold is cumulative graph is, well, misleading.
Absolute number and percentage are both interesting metrics depending on what you are interested in.
"Robert and I both knew Lisp well, and we couldn't see any reason not to trust our instincts and go with Lisp. We knew that everyone else was writing their software in C++ or Perl. But we also knew that that didn't mean anything. If you chose technology that way, you'd be running Windows. When you choose technology, you have to ignore what other people are doing, and consider only what will work the best."
E.g. even if "getting your face hit by a brick, hourly" is a more widely demanded skill and has more job openings than Haskell I'd still pick the latter.
It turns out the Haskell job market has been growing steadily since then, with a dip during Covid.
I'm not after FANG money but would love a job in a functional language.
If you are interested in a job using a functional language you can pick basically any of them and then jump ship to a different one. I wrote Clojure for many years before switching to Haskell.
Agree, but I would even recommend to start with a simpler one (Scheme, OCaml...). Haskell is harder.
Everything is worth learning, especially if it interests you.
That being said, you should be aware that outside of hyper niche applications, most Haskell jobs are in projects where Haskell was chosen because some lead has an affinity for it, not because of any real practical benefits in comparison to other languages.
Higher-Kinded Types seem complex to me but until I have a play I wont know.
The other thing that makes me think Haskell is harder is that functional code is enforced, while in F# it's simply the default. I'm not sure what impact this will have on complexity of real world applications. But in F# it's really easy to have an imperative shell and functional core.
I did it this way: Learned Haskell in university, found it lot better than other languages in many regards, decided that I don't want to waste my life time using worse tools for 40 years of career when there are better tools around, and set out to get a Haskell job. I taught myself enough Haskell to write real world programs besides university, and got the desired job straight after uni.
I found my job from, surprise ... the Haskell Reddit; in fact, my first job is in the raw data linked from the repo.
It is possible to onboard onto Haskell jobs without knowing the language, but it is way easier and more likely to get a job when you know it reasonably well first.
So do learn it.
That being said, expertise in FP can open the door to some very interesting jobs. I remember when I was a student (20+ years ago), the word was that FP was pretty much useless in the real world. While it's true that it's more niche than C++/JS, some teams use it, and it can give you an edge.
One data point - I get paid to solve problems by writing OCaml code. I am a self-taught programmer with a linguistics undergrad degree.
I hope this helps others who are interested, but are feeling insecure because of the stereotype that one needs a PhD to write programs in a particular language.
This isn't what I said. Even a high school student can write programs in OCaml, it doesn't require any degree and is no harder than other languages.
My point is that if you want to work at Meta, Jane Street, Standard Chartered, or other selective companies that use Haskell/OCaml, just having "Haskell" listed on your resume is probably not enough to be considered for interviews. You will need other skills to distinguish you from other candidates. Could be a PhD, or being good at grinding leetcode problems, a recognized expertise, a prestigious degree, domain specific knowledge and so on.
I suspect companies using these languages tend to be more selective on average than those working on more common tech (e.g. php, js).
I agree that listing Haskell or OCaml on one's CV isn't enough. I think this holds the same way for other languages, at least in the company where I interview.
To the people who are interested in solving problems using functional languages. You should apply, even if you think you are not part of the "selective" in-group like PhD or language expertise
> feeling insecure because of the stereotype that one needs a PhD to write programs in a particular language
One certainly doesn't need a PhD to program in a functional language. But I can tell you, there is a big gap between being able to do it and convincing someone to hire you. I even have a PhD in comp sci, and AFAICT, it hasn't convinced anyone that I can do anything in particular.
Learn out of curiosity, not for money. Money will come.
There is no expectation that a job will fall on my lap. However, if I have a better chance of winning the lottery than landing a job in a technology I'm not likely to bother learning the technology.
I'm not convince Haskell will do more to making me a better programmer than another language could. If that other language has job prospects I'm going to lean into that.
(We could talk about other languages too, but here we were talking about Haskell. It's a particularly interesting choice for growing as an engineer because it's a purely functional language, which means it will force you to unlearn a whole bunch of things and give you a lot more perspective-- it's not difficult, it's just very different than most other languages you likely have exposure to. I also recommend Clojure, that's a great language.)
It seems so paradoxical.
It's a bit like someone saying, I'd love to be a hairdresser, do you think it's worth studying to be a hairdresser? There's something which blows up my brain to read that. If you love it, do it.
Nothing makes sense here!
I like the idea of hairdressing, however I hear there are not many jobs in that field. Is it worth studying this, if my intention is to use it professionally?
There is no paradox in wanting get some meta information on a subject before investing in learning it.
What do you mean by this? I've been out of school for decades.
I know F# and think Scala or Ocaml might be a better choice as the next language I learn.
Purescript also looks promising.
I could invest all the time in Haskell first but there is an opportunity cost that I'm trying to maximize.
To you. Not to everyone. Personally, I wouldn't work in PHP for anything short of the Apollo program. The gap between Haskell and the best mainstream languages is not quite that large, but it's not negligible either.
And I get what you’re saying, but most places are not hiring PHP, they’re hiring boring languages that aren’t that bad to work with.
At my workplace, we've been toying with Haskell and we'll be putting it in production over the next 6-12 months. I might be placing some Haskell job adverts on reddit next year!
02/01/2011 16 The F# Team are Hiring (functional programming jobs) 08/27/2022 425 Looking for a Haskell Job in Germany
Ex: Is it new companies offering new jobs... Or largely a fixed stagnant list of companies locked-in and needing to replace + expand?
Curious both by # co's, and % of jobs. Is there a few Haskell mega-employers out there, is it mostly replacement of existing with growth being from new co's, ...?
(I used to measure adoption decisions here, and employment is an awesome angle!)
I know the one and only Haskell job I personally looked into was about smart contracts.
Opinion: Something I did not anticipate is these languages allow a high degree of individual choice in coding style by a programmer, and companies tend to dislike this. I have read this sentiment about Clojure shops; the original authors are very capable in the codebase but it can be hard to bring in new team members later. It seems to me most companies prefer less expressive languages with opinionated style guidelines. I have never worked with Python professionally, but apparently there is a high emphasis on style consistency in the community.
Obviously there exist projects in less expressive languages that are hard to maintain, so maybe ease-of-onboarding and ease-of-maintenance depend on something else.
I still believe the type system of Haskell can provide great benefits to codebase maintenance over the long term. If the coding style were restricted and opinionated, it might assist with company adoption.
>Obviously there exist projects in less expressive languages that are hard to maintain
This is the flip side of more conservative language choices. The moment you're off the beaten path you're doing way more custom stuff to work around the language. My favourite one I point at is Instagram's use of Python is commonly held up as "Python can do everything" but when you read their tech blogs you're basically reading "here's how we got some extremely skilled specialist language Devs to Jerry rig custom functionality onto python to create a flavour that could be doing absolutely anything. All to avoid hiring a few devs with a copy of a standard manual for some other language.
> I still believe the type system of Haskell can provide great benefits to codebase maintenance over the long term. If the coding style were restricted and opinionated, it might assist with company adoption.
Counterpoint. What if it's an impossible task for languages to encode a business domain and they should give your developers the tools to do it and then get out of the way? Its still opinionated. Its just that the opinions are coming from your businesses stack.
> Counterpoint. What if it's an impossible task for languages to encode a business domain and they should give your developers the tools to do it and then get out of the way? Its still opinionated. Its just that the opinions are coming from your businesses stack.
Interesting point; that there is no general-purpose language that perfectly encodes every business domain.
I disagree with giving the developers the tools and getting out of the way. The management is still responsible for the outcome of the project and needs more control than this. Yes, fungibility of developers is a concern. If the developers hold equity in the project, they are incentivized to support fungibility as well, to allow the company to grow.
IMO start-ups should reduce the proprietary code opinions as much as possible, and rely on well-publicized code patterns as much as possible. This both grows the hireable talent pool, and makes it easier for new hires to understand the system once inside. Since start-ups tend to pay less than large companies and the equity is high risk, it is unfair IMO to require new employees to learn a highly-opinionated proprietary start-up tech stack. The requirement to learn a proprietary stack is more justifiable in large companies where the financial compensation is more reliable and often higher.
Once the learning curve has been overcome, most would agree that higher-level languages are more productive. I am significantly more productive in Haskell than Python, especially for any highly non-trivial problem.
Eh, it's the other way around. As you keep adding functionality to a program in an imperative language, at some point it will turn into a mess that you can describe as a Rube Goldberg machine.
Functional programming allows one to keep one's head cool, and thus you will reach tipping point complexity at a much later stage.
FP allows one to build taller buildings. This is what attracts smart people to Haskell.
The functional paradigm has its strengths and weaknesses, just like any other paradigm. One of its strengths is facilitating elegant, easily understood, and highly correct code -- but that depends on the developer.
From a 30 seconds look, it seems there are around 5 cryptocurrency jobs in the list for year 2022.
You will find that currently the list of Haskell companies is quite diverse across industries, which is a big change vs. 10 years ago.
Clash for FPGA work, and several tools from Galois for embedded real time uses.
Good to see the adoption growth.
Maybe that'd be a good canary in the coal mine of the Haskell job market, so to speak.