Comment by kqr
3 days ago
Curious since you don't expand on it on the blog: in what way did Haskell's purity make it difficult to you?
Having used Haskell in production for a bit now, I don't even notice its purity. Most functions are in some kind of I/O context making it similar as other languages, except with the option of running without I/O capabilities for functions that shouldn't need it.
For me, Haskell's image and ideal of purity are what made it difficult when I started out. I tried learning the language by reimplementing a program I'd previously done imperatively, that was (in hindsight) obviously hard to do in a plain pure way, ended up learning about zippers and knot-tying to do something in a less efficient and more confusing way than just using something like STArray because I had this idea from reading about Haskell that this was not only a good way to do things, but would be magically fast because GHC. (It was not.)
These days I'd just do such a task more-or-less imperatively in Haskell, and I would be well guided by the types in doing so. But I also feel like you have to make a few such mistakes if you want to get a good intuition and taste for when it's good do things purely and when imperatively.
You gotta remember people are often picking languages based on what they can easily find out about it and extrapolating/guessing about what problems they'll run into with their expected use.
A few years ago on here I had an interesting conversation with someone who wasn't going to use rescript for something because they didn't like how it handled object types. I can't remember ever using an object type in rescript; we all just convert js objects to record type in the extern binding. But that's not information easily available to someone who has never used the language.
Same thing here I think. If you don't already have familiarity with this paradigm, it's hard to imagine what using an IO monad for side effects is like. It's not easy to tell how hard it'll be to learn it, how much it may affect the rest of your code, etc. It's easy to imagine someone (shit even me a few years ago) going "eh I'll take the language with the big easy escape hatches just in case."
> You gotta remember people are often picking languages based on what they can easily find out about it and extrapolating/guessing about what problems they'll run into with their expected use.
This is a good observation.
As someone who writes a lot of Lisp, I'm inclined to agree as the amount of people that have never written any Lisp yet immediately reject it over syntax over fears that it somehow hampers development is a (to me) surprisingly large number of people.
If I recall correctly, one of the motivating factors for Rescript was to reduce the perceived/real distance between Reason and JS in order to attract more JS devs, as Reason was so heavily associated with OCaml.
I honestly don't remember as it was +/-6 years ago. I had started learning Haskell and got to that conclusion. Maybe that I am now more versed in FP I would arrive at another conclusion? I don't know.
Another thing that was hard to grasp for me were the special operators like =<<, ., $, etc. I was using Xmonad, but those operators create a barrier to understanding exactly what happened in the file.
In the end, F# was in my (personal) experience much more approachable, and it let me learn the functional concepts along the way.
What about libraries though? They might force you to use certain monads rather than IO?
The libraries I use either have, or at least allow, IO at the base of their transformer stacks, so any IO action is a liftIO away.
Haskell taught me the important differences between IO and parity and forever influenced the way I program.
Even so the complexity here and the sheer number of mind bending concepts makes me not want to use it.