Eh, most of them looks like legacy, and I doubt they would endure after haskell’s death. Also it would be detached from any programming industry. Perhaps Clean is possible candidate to last, but that is only one…
Perhaps I am simply depressed at how industry is leaning towards Go (and possibly python).
I don’t think purity will die out. I’ve skimmed through some old codebases of id games and had the impression those C programmers already had a concept of “purity” back then and applied it to some of their function documentation.
But there are many ways to deal with the “reasoning problem”.
Laziness on the other hand, can (very often) make reasoning harder. Its main advantage is optimization, imo (I know some argue it also facilitates composition). But I’d be surprised if we see a new solid language make use of it.
2 Likes
Hmm:
To put it [another] way: It feels like if Haskell dies out, purity and laziness will go with it.
…I thought we were discussing how those concepts would endure, either in those languages or (if they also disappeared) in the various research journals dedicated to computer science and software development. As for the fate of individual languages, the advent of Haskell itself marked the end of most of its “site-specific” predecessors, with (IIRC) the sole exception of Miranda(R). If Haskell disappears, it will most likely be in similar fashion - superseded by another non-strict language, and as noted above:
I think you are talking on the past. I mean why would ppl perform purity reasoning in the future? I don’t think Go programmers would accept such. People would eventually let AI do the job anyway.
I wish… if only.
…using that line of reasoning: Why would anyone program at all in the future? They would eventually let an AI do the job anyway.
So what happens if the AI gets it wrong? The future hardware that programs will be running on will still be subject to the physical laws of this universe…
1 Like
Perhaps it would be dressed as a fault of the users. Considering stuffs like youtube algorithm… users might even agree that it was their fault.
I’ve worked in a Go shop some time ago. Those were all smart engineers. Most of them however didn’t have much explicit knowledge about this topic. And yet they were struggling daily with the lack of purity or unrestricted mutability.
As some rust docs put it: global mutable state is the root of all evil… but there are different solutions to the problem.
There are some successors of Haskell with purity: Agda, Idris, Elm, Purescript. And Nix does have laziness (but it is not really general purpose).
1 Like
As you said ‘and yet’, do you mean they rarely struggled with lack of purity/unrestricted mutability?
Oh. Indeed, I wish Agda and Idris would go afloat. However, I don’t see much signs for that. From what I’ve heard before, Elm is increasingly becoming a thing of the past. I am quite sure that purescript is in similar situation with haskell regarding adoption.
Nowadays, the programming world seems to revolve around Go, Python, JS. Perhaps that is the practicality.
Well, Agda and Idris were mentioned as languages that the early adopters have moved to in this thread:
So, it could meet the same fate as haskell. Likely sooner, as I see less ppl interested in research compared to the past.
I just don’t find much hope in the future, whether haskell, programming as a whole, or the entire world.
So what happens if the AI gets it wrong? The future hardware that programs will be running on will still be subject to the physical laws of this universe…
…based on my experience, a vanishing-small number of users: the exceedingly-large majority of users will very much be looking for someone to solve the problem (or to blame!) - either way, there will be some explaining to do. Considering an AI has already made one mistake, having a human around who can understand what’s going wrong (instead of relying on another AI) could be useful…
Hm, if only. Perhaps it is people in my local environment, but I don’t see ppl finding fault in AI. they at most find fault in the employees unrelated with the AIs.
Btw, what do you mean by “an AI has already made one mistake”?
EDIT: I see. How do you envision the future on the AI then? (edited away the controversial political part, sorry…)
That’s a different topic - I would probably seek out a website dedicated to all matters AI: all I can offer at the moment are opinions, and as @AntC2 duly noted, they can be wrong…
1 Like
Oh, I see. Still, I can’t stop thinking hopeless in the programming world… Perhaps it is because I am used to seeing companies hiring juniors en masse, paying the bare minimum to get the job done hastily.
That may make a lot of sense business wise. Not every business needs or wants to become a tech company, especially at the start where your primary concern is to generate value, not robust tech.
Programmers are often in their own bubble as well.
I see that programmers are often in their own bubbles, ya…
I also understand that many companies are not into robust tech, so they would go for whatever meets their end. Problem is, the companies I mentioned were full SW companies which supposed to have tech. Some making office software, some do SW Infrastructure, then banking systems, games etc. Those who advertises as tech-oriented (and secure, even).
For my part, I make quite good money writing Scala with a pronounced Haskell accent, and I’ve done so well enough that I’m in a position to start pushing Haskell proper as an option for future work. The key features of Haskell-ish FP (programs as values, pervasive immutability, etc.) are hugely valuable in my practice, and I wouldn’t be nearly so effective without them. I’ve never written Haskell for money (well, a little during my contracting years, but they didn’t know that), but writing it to scratch my own itches has left me with an appreciation for the craft of programming that is exceedingly rare in the wider world of programmers.
Languages get popular because huge company X uses them, and everyone wants to believe they have the same problems as company X, so obviously they must use the same stack. Betting on industry trends is the surest way to end up in a dead stack 5 years hence. Choose the one that lets you express yourself in the way you want to, and learn to speak that language anywhere.
14 Likes
You make an excellent point. I don’t think we should be too worried about trend shifting either. Haskell has an audience and a rather committed one.
9 Likes