11 ms·

It's interesting that you bring this up, because I'd consider Go and Haskell as almost polar opposites. Go is a simple language which lacks expressibility but w

It's interesting that you bring this up, because I'd consider Go and Haskell as almost polar opposites. Go is a simple language which lacks expressibility but with strong opinions on almost everything from formatting to architecture, which leads to a streamlined (and refreshing) developer experience. Haskell is a complex language, with an expressive type system giving you more tools and guarantees but I would call the learning / dev experience everything but streamlined. I wonder whether the difference in the organisational structure (single entity vs community) manifests in the characteristics of these languages.

weavie 7y ago
I think a big part of the success of Haskell is down to its language extensions. New features are introduced as off by default and can be opted into. This allows all kinds of crazy features to be introduced without really impacting users if they don't want to. It does allow the community to be quite experimental without fear of destroying things.
- foldr 7y ago
  You can opt out of using those extensions in your own code, but many of them are now deeply embedded in the library ecosystem.
  - weavie 7y ago
    Indeed. It's like a feature democracy where each library gets a vote on which features it finds most useful. Those that then get deeply embedded are clearly those that are most useful. Those features that aren't particularly used don't really get anywhere.
    - foldr 7y ago
      I sort of agree with that, but features often have externalities. For example, let's say I choose to use lambda case because it makes some of my code a little bit more concise. From my narrow point of view, that seems like a win. But then it's one more piece of syntax that external tools have to deal with, one more barrier to anyone trying to develop an alternative to GHC, one little piece of additional complexity to throw off Haskell newbies who want to read my code, etc. etc.
      - weavie 7y ago
        True. Those are all good points. I do still feel the upsides more than make up for it, but yes I am glad I'm not responsible for developing any external tools for Haskell!
      - jolfdb 7y ago
        Do you need an alternative to GHC?
        nudq 7y ago
        What's GHC's bus factor? (Actual question.)
        bojo 7y ago
        The top 10 contributors are active and fairly well known in the community (I recognize 5 of the names at least), of 170 members with commit bits for the project. https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/graphs/master https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/graphs/master
        foldr 7y ago
        I would certainly like a compiler that was fast enough to be usable with realistically-sized codebases. I'm writing this while waiting a couple of minutes for ~10,000 lines of Haskell to compile.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        Interestingly, compilation time was one of the motivations for Go. Can you create a Haskell compiler that is faster than GHC? Probably. Can you create one that is fast? I'm much more skeptical of that.
- jerf 7y ago
  Haskell also has the motto "Avoid 'success at all costs'."[1] What that means is not that they want to fail at the things they set out to do, but that they want to ensure the language is never in a position where it's so important that certain behaviors or code be kept exactly the same because there's too much code that depends on it in the wild that they can't experiment with some new interesting feature in the next release. It is fundamentally an experimental language; while it is used for certain production applications, there's a sense in which the Haskell community+language simply can not ever become a top-tier language, by the community's design. If anything like Haskell ever does get into top-tier status, it'll be something that claims Haskell as a parent, not Haskell itself. [1]: Edited, thank you maxiepoo.
  - maxiepoo 7y ago
    The "motto" (if it can be called that) is not "avoid success", it's "avoid 'success at all costs'" which makes the sentiment clearer: increasing adoption should never be a priority over principled design.
    - fwip 7y ago
      Interestingly, the motto can be parsed two ways, with different connotations. "Avoid (success at all costs)" or "(avoid success) at all costs."
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    they want to ensure the language is never in a position where it's so important that certain behaviors or code be kept exactly the same because there's too much code that depends on it in the wild that they can't experiment with some new interesting feature in the next release. Squeak Smalltalk had this. "Burn the diskpacks!"
jolfdb 7y ago
Ironically the community designed language is so complicated that programs can only be mantained by small teams of original authors, while the tightly controlled language is consistent enough that large groups can collaborate on one program.

weavie 7y ago

I think a big part of the success of Haskell is down to its language extensions. New features are introduced as off by default and can be opted into. This allows all kinds of crazy features to be introduced without really impacting users if they don't want to. It does allow the community to be quite experimental without fear of destroying things.

foldr 7y ago
You can opt out of using those extensions in your own code, but many of them are now deeply embedded in the library ecosystem.
- weavie 7y ago
  Indeed. It's like a feature democracy where each library gets a vote on which features it finds most useful. Those that then get deeply embedded are clearly those that are most useful. Those features that aren't particularly used don't really get anywhere.
  - foldr 7y ago
    I sort of agree with that, but features often have externalities. For example, let's say I choose to use lambda case because it makes some of my code a little bit more concise. From my narrow point of view, that seems like a win. But then it's one more piece of syntax that external tools have to deal with, one more barrier to anyone trying to develop an alternative to GHC, one little piece of additional complexity to throw off Haskell newbies who want to read my code, etc. etc.
    - weavie 7y ago
      True. Those are all good points. I do still feel the upsides more than make up for it, but yes I am glad I'm not responsible for developing any external tools for Haskell!
    - jolfdb 7y ago
      Do you need an alternative to GHC?
      - nudq 7y ago
        What's GHC's bus factor? (Actual question.)
        bojo 7y ago
        The top 10 contributors are active and fairly well known in the community (I recognize 5 of the names at least), of 170 members with commit bits for the project. https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/graphs/master https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/graphs/master
      - foldr 7y ago
        I would certainly like a compiler that was fast enough to be usable with realistically-sized codebases. I'm writing this while waiting a couple of minutes for ~10,000 lines of Haskell to compile.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        Interestingly, compilation time was one of the motivations for Go. Can you create a Haskell compiler that is faster than GHC? Probably. Can you create one that is fast? I'm much more skeptical of that.
jerf 7y ago
Haskell also has the motto "Avoid 'success at all costs'."[1] What that means is not that they want to fail at the things they set out to do, but that they want to ensure the language is never in a position where it's so important that certain behaviors or code be kept exactly the same because there's too much code that depends on it in the wild that they can't experiment with some new interesting feature in the next release. It is fundamentally an experimental language; while it is used for certain production applications, there's a sense in which the Haskell community+language simply can not ever become a top-tier language, by the community's design. If anything like Haskell ever does get into top-tier status, it'll be something that claims Haskell as a parent, not Haskell itself. [1]: Edited, thank you maxiepoo.
- maxiepoo 7y ago
  The "motto" (if it can be called that) is not "avoid success", it's "avoid 'success at all costs'" which makes the sentiment clearer: increasing adoption should never be a priority over principled design.
  - fwip 7y ago
    Interestingly, the motto can be parsed two ways, with different connotations. "Avoid (success at all costs)" or "(avoid success) at all costs."
- stcredzero 7y ago
  they want to ensure the language is never in a position where it's so important that certain behaviors or code be kept exactly the same because there's too much code that depends on it in the wild that they can't experiment with some new interesting feature in the next release. Squeak Smalltalk had this. "Burn the diskpacks!"

jolfdb 7y ago

Ironically the community designed language is so complicated that programs can only be mantained by small teams of original authors, while the tightly controlled language is consistent enough that large groups can collaborate on one program.