A success story by what definition? I cannot judge Haskell as I don't know it well enough.
I should have added "usually". On average when something is designed by a committee the effect is like this, but not always. You don't have to take my word for it [1]. That kind of outcome is not always guaranteed and the result can be good in some cases. In same way, an AI generated content can also sometimes have character.
> A success story by what definition? I cannot judge Haskell as I don't know it well enough.
In the sense that it looks coherent and incorporates a lot of lessons learned over the decades of functional programming.
Design by committee usually fails either by being boring or by becoming a Frankenstein monster made of various contradictory opinions of committee members. Neither is the case with Haskell.
And the only bad design decision that I know of, namely to not make Monad derived from Applicative, was corrected in a future release.
A success story by what definition? I cannot judge Haskell as I don't know it well enough.
I should have added "usually". On average when something is designed by a committee the effect is like this, but not always. You don't have to take my word for it [1]. That kind of outcome is not always guaranteed and the result can be good in some cases. In same way, an AI generated content can also sometimes have character.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee
> A success story by what definition? I cannot judge Haskell as I don't know it well enough.
In the sense that it looks coherent and incorporates a lot of lessons learned over the decades of functional programming.
Design by committee usually fails either by being boring or by becoming a Frankenstein monster made of various contradictory opinions of committee members. Neither is the case with Haskell.
And the only bad design decision that I know of, namely to not make Monad derived from Applicative, was corrected in a future release.