People who can't handle Haskell

Get out of /prog/. Seriously.

Give up. Fewer people like you, trying to get their own thing off the ground, means less obstacles for me and heads I have to step on. I go out every day and crush it, even on days when I don't feel like doing anything, or when I get to a tedious part in my projects. I still go and bust my fuckin ass.

Why? Because I want it. I want success BADLY, and I'll work my ass off until I get there. I've tried several ventures, few have stuck with mild success until my current one. 9 years now I've been going at it, and I still fucking want it. I'm still FUCKIN HUNGRY.

So yeah, stay out of /prog/. This is territory best ruled by people like myself. If you can't taste it in your mouth every morning when you wake up.... if you can tolerate having a day job and being someone elses slave... if you can entertain the idea of giving up... then this isn't your gig. Go ahead and quit now.

I'll send a postcard from the top.

Whats wrong with Haskell, beside that it has types?

BTW, Haskell would be a nice language, if Simon Python Jones had added dynamic typing and macros. And some syntax for List-processing won't be bad. It's annoying having to write #\, everywhere

>>2-3
Stop shitting on /prog/.

>>4
No u.

>>1
What does Haskell have to do with anything? Sounds like you are afraid of no talent college grads showing you up. Perhaps you are the one that needs to give up.

Why would anyone use anything other than C?

hahaha haskell... what a poser language

use python

>>8
python
fascist pig

>>8
Python is no better than Haskell. It also has OOP and classes.

>>7
C doesn't have portable lambda functions. C doesn't have static type inference. C doesn't yet have a robust memory model for concurrency (although C1x will fix that). C doesn't have templates.

Write anything in C, and I will rewrite it in C++ so that it is much faster.

>>1
This is a good post. Thanks sir. I will keep fighting hard.

C doesn't have portable lambda functions.
Faster

What are you smoking?

>>11

So basically it doesn't have any toy language features

>>13
C++ now has portable lambda functions, but it's still shit.
C is also particularly hard to optimize compared to high-level languages, because it wants to be ``low-level'' (but fails hard at it).

>>8
The lamba functions are hella limited relative to Haskell.

Haskell is for huge fucking faggots

The hyper-enthusiasts are seemingly always going to congregate in some language. Once, they were in the Java camp. Today, they're in Haskell. I'm not speaking to these people; I'm speaking to the serious, intelligent programmer who has discovered that Haskell "fits his brain" like no other language before, but may be at a loss to explain in detailed scientific terms exactly why this might be so.

But – and this is going to be the hardest part to swallow – from the point of view of academic computer scientists like Dr. Huntbach, Haskell honestly introduces nothing new, and confuses some underlying concepts in ways which are, frankly, dangerous.

Almost every piece of set theory that I've tried to define in Haskell comes out looking very much like the original. This closeness allows me to work in mathematics, and then translate things to Haskell easily without worrying about having made mistakes in the translation.

The choice of problem is based on our belief that a good understanding of evaluation order is very important for writing practical Haskell programs. People learning Haskell often have the idea that evaluation order is not important because it does not affect the calculated result. It is no coincidence that beginners end up floundering around with space leaks that they do not understand.

In the end, any program must manipulate state. A program that has no side effects whatsoever is a kind of black box. All you can tell is that the box gets hotter. The next Haskell will be strict. -- Simon Peyton-Jones, a major contributor to the functional programming language Haskell.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1924061
http://oscon.blip.tv/file/324976

>>21
(/=) strict haveState

>>18
What does it confuse exactly?
Buttocks as a member of every possible type (i. e. even ``empty'' types have _|_ as a value)?  Hard to work around that.  Not having buttocks will lead to much more inconvenience.
fail in Monad typeclass perhaps?

>>23
There're no "types" IRL. This means you'll run into troubles, trying to model IRL problems with Haskell. For example, IRL every cat is unique, that shares evoloutionary prototype. Same applies to aircraft designs and any other viable designs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_(programming_language)

A much more elegant and practical language than Haskell.

>>23
I'm a Haskell illiterate, but wasn't ⊥ the bottom type (``empty'' type)?

>>25
That's not Io.

Handle? Someone can understand something and still prefer other options to it. Not everyone likes statically typed languages, some people prefer powerful macro systems and so on.

>>24
Yeah... Haskell is a Jewish "type" fetish, right?

>>26
There is a special undefined constant that can ``have'' any type you want, which means it is an element of every possible type in Haskell.

>>30
So it's kinda like null in glorious Java?

>>31
null pointer monadic exceptional overflow‽^‽_‽

>>28
You forgot, that Haskell has ugly syntax, compared to Forth, Lisp and Smalltalk. And its functions can't have variadic arg lists and keywords.

FARTISM

>>33
And its functions can't have variadic arg lists and keywords.
Because of currying.
I also find Haskell's syntax prettier than C derivatives/Ocaml, but I'd never use it actively.

I'm the usual Forth/Lisp/Smalltalk advocate.

fartism

And *why* again would we use Haskell?

>>37 -> >>36

>>38
Get out.
>>36
Get out.

>>39
FARTIST DETECTED