It's the classic "not invented here" syndrome, but on the level of languages. It's not enough to be able to have strong types in Javascript, they want people to stop writing Javascript, scrap the entire ecosystem, create all new browsers on every platform, and only write in their strongly typed language that's just as flawed as Javascript.
What I find very funny about PureScript is how it has these super-fancy types, designed from the ground up to express things like semigroupoids, lenses and profunctor-based optics... yet it doesn't have a numeric type better than JavaScript's good old floating points.
Just to be clear, this isn't meant as criticism, since I absolutely love how Haskell (and now PureScript too!) exploit algebraic structures to make code more reusable and robust. But the contrast between “can express fancy structures precisely” and “doesn't have precise arithmetic” is very amusing.
JS runs natively on the web, it embraces multiple paradigms, it has a huge community, and you can get a job in almost any city on earth if you know how to use it. Haskell may be "better" as a language, (just as Esperanto may be superior to English) but if you want the widest range of opportunities in your life and not just in your language, Javascript/English beats Haskell/Esperanto.
Why not help bring some of Haskell's concepts to a more relevant language instead of bemoaning the entirely rational decisions made by millions of junior and senior developers?
Edit: the rabid insularity of the Haskell community definitely doesn't help. The Python community was dissatisfied with JS and created Coffeescript, and as of ES6 now everyone can enjoy the fat arrow syntax. Less pleasantly, the Java community got class syntax added to ES6, but at least they're trying to contribute. I'm sure Haskell has plenty of really cool things to bring to the table, but I've never heard of any of them, because all the Haskell community wants do is talk about how JavaScript sucks instead of embracing the functional side of it.
Firstly, poor analogy—English is a much superior language to Esperanto in terms information density over seconds per syllable in addition to being more expressive (it's easier to talk about a wide variety of topics and abstractions). Possibly more importantly than that, it takes a lot of people to make a spoken language useful for doing business but far far fewer for a computer language.
> instead of bemoaning the entirely rational decisions made by millions of junior and senior developers
I think people are bemoaning the stupid shit and not the entirely rational decisions. JS makes the former a bit easy.
> Python community was dissatisfied with JS and created Coffeescript
Nitpicking, but the first CoffeeScript compiler was written in Ruby and the language was largely inspired by Ruby.
> the Java community got class syntax added to ES6
Huh that's a new one
pretty sure that's not just the Java community, given that JS developers have been independently inventing class libraries (starting with Prototype, if not earlier) for ages.
> I'm sure Haskell has plenty of really cool things to bring to the table, but I've never heard of any of them
Underscore, lazy.js, other popular JavaScript libraries have some Haskellisms; LiveScript is a fork of CoffeeScript that used to be moderately popular and very Haskelly; React takes a lot of ideas from Haskell; immutable.js is quite Haskellian….
I think you're just not looking.
> all the Haskell community wants do is talk about how JavaScript sucks
You can drive a go cart on the highway, and you can keep modding your go cart, but at some point you might want to not be driving a fucking go cart on the highway.
It is almost impossible for the Haskell metadata widget I described to have bugs. But I've seen production bugs in the corresponding JS code twice in the last few months. You simply cannot get the kind of correctness guarantees in JS that you have in Haskell.
> Pedantic, arrogant, and self-contradictory combined with poor reading comprehension and even worse social skills is the stereotype of the Haskell fanatic, and you're living up to it perfectly.
> the rabid insularity of the Haskell community definitely doesn't help. The Python community was dissatisfied with JS and created Coffeescript, and as of ES6 now everyone can enjoy the fat arrow syntax. Less pleasantly, the Java community got class syntax added to ES6, but at least they're trying to contribute. I'm sure Haskell has plenty of really cool things to bring to the table, but I've never heard of any of them, because all the Haskell community wants do is talk about how JavaScript sucks instead of embracing the functional side of it.
Since you mentioned CoffeeScript, Elm seems like a particularly relevant example of something that came out of the Haskell community and which compiles to JavaScript.
I think you have a negative impression of both Haskell and its community which isn't necessarily justified. It's a little insular, but not to the extent that you're suggesting here. PureScript is another language that Haskell has almost directly spawned. It's a lot more complex than Elm, like Haskell itself, but has quite a few brilliant insights of its own.
> Since you mentioned CoffeeScript, Elm seems like a particularly relevant example of something that came out of the Haskell community and which compiles to JavaScript.
Let's not forget Purescript[0], which is looking to be the spiritual successor to Haskell, and runs on node.
While I can't say that I am a big fan of the Haskell community, I fully understand why they see how extending Javascript is never going to work out: You can't just bolt Hindley-Milner to a language with prototypical inheritance, so the functional part of Javascript just doesn't help at all. This is why instead, for the web, they have Purescript, which compiles down to Javascript, but it doesn't look like Javascript.
Not quite coming from the Haskell community, but heavily inspired by parts of Haskell is Elm, which you might have heard about. It has the best compiler errors ever, it takes immutability seriously, and is far nicer IMO than either Purescript or Javascript for web development.
It's really an issue of types. Languages like Java, Python and Javascript don't have quite the same approach to types, but their worldviews there are not that different. Anything coming from the ML family just isn't going to translate, and that is going to happen regardless of how insular the communities might be. Existing Javascript features actively make most of the things a Haskell programmer would want just not work at all. This is why you hear them talk about how Javascript sucks: Everything they'd want involves taking things out first, and that is never going to happen.
So don't blame in on the community here, bad as some elements might be: The differences just cannot be negotiated away. You might as well ask people to open their mind and breathe carbon dioxide and sulfur so they can go visit you in Venus: It's a barrier that is too hard to be worth crossing in either direction. Trying to add Javascript or Python features to Haskell would get you in a similar boat.
Not that I know much about it, but http://www.purescript.org certainly looks like a kind of "Coffeescript for Haskell”? Or is that language too different from JS for that purpose? The that might just be because Haskell is quite different from JS.
True, but one way to push them to fix their engine and make it better is for them to feel pressure to not be left behind. People are going to code in the way that makes sense for them, and if one mainstream-enough implementation works way better than another, eventually people are going to stop bothering with it.
Safari has become the new IE in a lot of ways, and larger and larger websites/apps are starting to only target Firefox and Chrome, leaving Apple with the options to either give up or rejoin the mainstream.
Some of us are actually quite aware of what's going on in Russia. It's true that the US is also very corrupt, and its populace is easily led into believing it has enemies everywhere, but there are qualitative differences, here are a few:
The most substantive critics of Putin tend to reside in Russia, and they tend to have the most decisive evidence of corruption, while Americans' negative perceptions of Russia do tend to be based in ignorance. So that point is true, but saying that A is mistaken about why B is bad does not mean that B is actually great, nor does it follow that if A is bad, B isn't.
For most adults/businesses in developed countries, mobile is a secondary device, while PCs run everything from AAA games to filing systems to interfaces for medical equipment.
It's definitely not standard, the almost universal standard is using ES6 import/export. There are several other suspicious patterns here, I definitely wouldn't take these as canonical, or even best practices.
I think this is great advice for a beginner on their first project. Using React's localState for everything is a huge anti-pattern, but Redux adds cognitive overhead and boilerplate.
Later, when you do a real project, Redux makes debugging and state consistency about 10 times easier, especially on a team or coordinating between multiple teams.
So this is either a glorified bucket shop or yet another company with the brilliant idea of setting up an unregulated secondary market selling an incredibly wide variety of different ownership instruments that were never intended to be sold.
IANAL, but if I was their counsel, I would definitely advise them to keep paying me a lot of money for a 10% chance it somehow works out with the regulators.
Sorry, but I think most people don't consider a badly designed service that disenfranchises customers arbitrarily and coincidentally saves HTC a bunch of money to be a "weird quirk."
Plenty of other companies are able to both honor their agreements and prevent fraud, why can't HTC?
Chomsky can be a bit tiresome, but when talking about domestic US politics and media his descriptions fit the undisputed-but-largely-unknown record better than anyone else's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_Illusions
