Numerous irregularities plus a strong vested interest in the JVM make me doubt they have given adequate shrift to Go, here.
Given the amount of interest in Haskell and Yesod around here, it is strange that it is missing.
Given the amount of interest in Haskell and Yesod around here, it is strange that it is missing.
"On the back-end, we use Java, Ruby, Python, .NET, PHP and others based on what makes sense balancing server performance, scalability, hosting costs, development efficiency, and your internal development team's capabilities."
Then you see results for some languages that are completely out of whack with most other such benchmarks (they themselves mention the weirdness of Sinatra vs. Rails, for example).
Then you see on a couple platforms that more performant mainstream options have been excluded, for no good reason.
Then if you look at the repo, there are deployment choices and code mistakes in some of the other languages which go well beyond elementary incompetence...
That said, we'd love to hear what we did wrong in the Go tests so that we can fix those up.
We'll be posting follow ups as we've had a chance to go through all the recommended tweaks.
I see more people making uninformed "haskell sucks" posts than expressing interest in it.
>and Yesod
Really? Yesod is the anti-haskell haskell framework.
Can you please elaborate. Being interested in Haskel web development and trying to choose web framework makes me wish for more information.
Haskell libraries often depend on language extensions, whether it is overloaded strings or type families or whatnot... so I think it's strange that Yesod gets picked on for doing the same: taking advantage of the tools provided by GHC to create a better environment for the developer.
[1] http://www.yesodweb.com/book/haskell#template-haskell-14
Then on top of that, the marketing behind yesod is essentially deliberate mis-truths that suggest weaknesses in haskell which do not exist. See how pilgrim689 thinks that the EDSL yesod uses for routing "gets you type safe urls"? Type safe urls are also available in happstack and snap, but written in haskell rather than a weird custom pre-processor language. The EDSL is just giving you a different syntax (and making error messages complex and hard to understand), not giving you the type safety. Pointing out that creating custom languages that are inferior to haskell and have no benefits is bad results in whining of "stop picking on yesod just because we use extensions, everyone uses extensions!", despite the use of extensions never being brought up.
As for more information about web frameworks in haskell: I've tried all three and can give you my thoughts. I ended up using snap, so consider me biased when reading this. Yesod is rails-like in that it pushes a misinterpretation of MVC on you that encourages writing redundant code. Happstack and snap aren't really frameworks in that sense, they don't say "give me some code following my conventions and I'll run it", they say "here's how you get access to the request, have fun". More like libraries than frameworks.
Yesod's DB access layer they provide is of the "dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator" variety, except that it adds even more limitations beyond that. So you end up having to use something else that is not integrated at all. Happstack and snap don't provide a DB access layer, but do provide integration with several DB libraries off hackage (hdbc, haskelldb, postgresql-simple, acid-state).
Happstack has the best documentation of them, and it and snap are very similar design wise. Porting an application from one to the other is pretty straight forward. The only reason we settled on snap instead of happstack is that snap includes a development mode that works well, and happstack does not. Meaning with snap you just change your code and it picks up the changes, recompiles and reloads it automatically, and shows you any errors in the browser when you refresh. With happstack you either need to work out your own way to deal with that, or keep recompiling manually all the time.
There are also regular posts about Yesod.
I conclude that you know perfectly well that Haskell and Yesod are regularly mentioned on HN, but find it inconvenient to have mentioned for some reason I do not fathom.
I am all over the place in here for the exact reason I mentioned. Go look at my posts, for every post about haskell by me, it is in response to someone posting some absurd nonsense like "haskell can't do real world" and "functional programming is great except you can't really do it because state". If people were interested in haskell, they would express interest, not strawman dismissals.
I'm interested in Haskell. I find it to be frustrating sometimes, and sometimes I vent my frustrations. It is hard to learn. But out of all the opinionated languages out there, Haskell is the one that I agree with the most.
There plenty of people here that are obviously interested. Why does it matter that the naysayers say nay?
That analogy would only be accurate if those Westboro people were in the majority.
>Why does it matter that the naysayers say nay?
I'm not sure how to answer this, given the context. I simply pointed out that I don't think the idea that there's a lot of interest in haskell here is accurate, and cited all the uninformed crap spewed about haskell all the time as evidence.
I really don't like this characterization of interest in Haskell. It implies that it's no different from any other language and is just arbitrarily picked up because it's trendy. Learning Haskell is a very substantial investment of time and effort, it is very different from languages that most programmers have used before. It practically tells people “don't even try to like me, I'm high maintenance.”