<div dir="ltr">Hi Ertugrul,<div><br></div><div>> Well, it is a rant, so you can just as well concede it. =)<div><br></div><div style>By my standards that was a lullaby ;-)</div><div style><br></div><div style>Everything you said is correct. Just like everything I said. </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>The best policy lies between the two extremes. Your extreme would be fine if Haskell presented itself as a purely theoretical research tool. But it actually wants people to use it for stuff that peoples' livelihoods depend on. </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>So there are some shiny new frameworks out there which unlike WASH didn't break yet. Thanks for the pointers. I tripped over blaze a moment ago (so no I didn't stomp back to PHP after all) which mentions something called Snap. I'll check out your other suggestions too. </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>But what about two years from now? Will they still be working by then or will their developers have got just as sick of continually moving goalposts as those of WASH evidently did? Or would I be taking on the job of maintaining it myself? I guess you'll be telling me that Happstack is a bad habit of mine and I should rewrite my whole system in whatever the new thing is by then.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>I mentioned this trade-off that you talk about towards the end of my rantaby. It's true that we can't have the best of both worlds but perhaps a little restraint would be appropriate. I mean, are you saying that Haskell was really bad when it could make up its mind what "import Prelude" meant? If you really want to change something that basic, how about calling the new one Prelude2? I kinda liked Haskell even in 1998. I just don't see why switching new things on has to mean switching old things off. You can't have your cake and eat it, but I see no reason to shit all over one half of the cake just because you're more interested in the other half.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Also, there's no real value in blaming these problems on the maintainers for retaining the "bad habits" that they learned from Haskell. The reality is that the forums are crammed with people suffering this kind of thing. It doesn't make a difference who you blame. Either way, the ecosystem looks untrustworthy, so fewer people will adopt it, and it'll be retreating from its original stated goal, which IIRC was to be a standard and widely used FL. It might be very rigorous and clever, but that's not much use if it's only being used by the people who have a full time job making it even cleverer. </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Not a lot of people in industry are using Haskell. More are using Erlang, Ocaml, XSL, J#, etc so it can't be just because they're scared of FP. If you'd rather see more using Haskell, I strongly suggest you get a grip on what real companies actually have to worry about. It ain't mathematical rigour. Backward compatibility is a big chunk of it.</div>
<div style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>Adrian.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div></div>