On 8/14/2012 5:57, Invisible wrote:
> So what do you think Haskell solves inelegantly?

Does it do hierarchies of types (like windows) nicely, where you don't have 
to go back and fix every use of an object when you add another one to the 
hierarchy?

Does it interface well to low-level stuff without having to write wrappers?

Does it handle threads running on various address spaces (i.e., distributed 
processing) well?

How is it on the code generation part? Can you write programs that emit code 
that it then loads back in? Can you write programs that notice your SQL 
schema has changed and modifies the running program to account for that?

Can you compile and distribute Haskell code, let other people use it, and 
then release new object code that is compatible with the existing code 
people already wrote and compiled without breaking things? If John writes 
code and releases the object code, then Mary subclasses that, and you're 
using Mary's object code in your program, does John releasing new object 
code require you to get Mary to help you use John's new code?

How elegantly does it interface to dynamic languages like javascript?

How elegantly does it handle the types in SQL tables? Stuff like nullable 
big decimals? Strings in various locales?

How easy is it to parse and compile, such that you could do so on a 
keystroke by keystroke basis? When you make a mistake, is it easy for the 
compiler to pinpoint where you made the mistake? Is it easy for the IDE to 
know when it's safe to recompile the code or whether you're still typing?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message