http://www.sdtimes.com/blog/post/2009/07/27/Everyonee28099s-talking-about-Haskell.aspx

"Despite its distance from traditional programming, and its relative 
lack of common use, Haskell has become one of the most talked-about 
languages on the Internet."

Um, WTF? No it hasn't!

If it weren't for the fact that I happen to use Haskell, I would never 
have heard of it. And if that sounds like a tautology, I've never used 
Python, don't know what Python code even looks like. But I've heard of 
it. Ditto for PHP, Ruby, ASP, C# and so on. Never seen any code, never 
used them, but I've certainly heard of them. Who the hell has heard of 
Haskell?

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:4a801e78$1@news.povray.org...
> Who the hell has heard of Haskell?

Everyone? Eddie Haskell was a character on Leave it to Beaver. Doh!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible schrieb:

> "Despite its distance from traditional programming, and its relative 
> lack of common use, Haskell has become one of the most talked-about 
> languages on the Internet."
> 
> Um, WTF? No it hasn't!

Well, according to the statistics on www.langpop.org it has. More 
talked-about than even C# or Ruby. And you can't argue about statistics, 
can you? :P


> If it weren't for the fact that I happen to use Haskell, I would never 
> have heard of it. And if that sounds like a tautology, I've never used 
> Python, don't know what Python code even looks like. But I've heard of 
> it. Ditto for PHP, Ruby, ASP, C# and so on. Never seen any code, never 
> used them, but I've certainly heard of them. Who the hell has heard of 
> Haskell?

Probably everyone who has ever visited povray.off-topic :P

Actually it seems to me that there's more discussion about Haskell here 
than, for instance, PHP, Ruby, Python, Perl, Java, and possibly even C#.


Though I guess the discussions we've seen here only serve the point that 
whether a language is *talked* about is quite orthogonal to whether 
people consider it any *relevant* :-P

So the statistics can also be interpreted that Haskell is a much more 
polarizing topic than other languages of similar relevance - or that it 
just happens to be the current favorite subject for programmers' idle 
smalltalk (no pun intended) ;-)

Post a reply to this message

>> "Despite its distance from traditional programming, and its relative 
>> lack of common use, Haskell has become one of the most talked-about 
>> languages on the Internet."
>>
>> Um, WTF? No it hasn't!
> 
> Well, according to the statistics on www.langpop.org it has. More 
> talked-about than even C# or Ruby. And you can't argue about statistics, 
> can you? :P

Heh. Depends on how those statistics are collected. ;-)

 From what I've seen, Lisp, Earlang and Clean get *way* more publicity 
than little old Haskell. Even ML is more widely known.

(E.g., XKCD makes several references to Lisp and Python, but never once 
mentions Haskell.)

>> Who the hell has heard of Haskell?
> 
> Probably everyone who has ever visited povray.off-topic :P

Only after I heard about it. :-P

> Actually it seems to me that there's more discussion about Haskell here 
> than, for instance, PHP, Ruby, Python, Perl, Java, and possibly even C#.

Depends on whether you mean "discussion" and in people arguing about the 
merits of a given language, or "mention" as in people using its name. 
I'd say there is *a lot* more material written about C, C++, C#, Java, 
etc. than there is about Haskell. Whether they are "discussed" more is 
harder to quantify. Certainly Haskell's name is less widely heard.

> Though I guess the discussions we've seen here only serve the point that 
> whether a language is *talked* about is quite orthogonal to whether 
> people consider it any *relevant* :-P

And, indeed, being talked about is quite orthogonal to being *used*, 
much less being *useful*.

Post a reply to this message

On 10-8-2009 15:19, Invisible wrote:
>
http://www.sdtimes.com/blog/post/2009/07/27/Everyonee28099s-talking-about-Haskell.aspx

> 
> 
> "Despite its distance from traditional programming, and its relative 
> lack of common use, Haskell has become one of the most talked-about 
> languages on the Internet."
> 
> Um, WTF? No it hasn't!

It is in this newsgroup. We even have two whole subnewsgroups devoted to 
it even though this is a server about a totally different language.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:53:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:


> (E.g., XKCD makes several references to Lisp and Python, but never once
> mentions Haskell.)

But it gets talked about in xkcd's forum.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/10/09 10:53, Invisible wrote:
>  From what I've seen, Lisp, Earlang and Clean get *way* more publicity
> than little old Haskell. Even ML is more widely known.

	Hadn't heard of Clean till today.

	Lisp used to be the king, but I'm sure if you look at the rate over the 
last 2 years, Haskell exceeds it.

-- 
"I've dropped my toothpaste," said Tom, crestfallen.

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4a801e78$1@news.povray.org...

>
http://www.sdtimes.com/blog/post/2009/07/27/Everyonee28099s-talking-about-Haskell.aspx
>
> "Despite its distance from traditional programming, and its relative
> lack of common use, Haskell has become one of the most talked-about
> languages on the Internet."
>
> Um, WTF? No it hasn't!

The author is obviously generalizing from p.o-t.

Post a reply to this message

>>  From what I've seen, Lisp, Earlang and Clean get *way* more publicity
>> than little old Haskell. Even ML is more widely known.
> 
>     Hadn't heard of Clean till today.

Yeah, Erlang is more widely known.

Clean is sort-of like Haskell, but much more messy. (Which makes the 
name kind of interesting...) It's more low-level, reputedly giving you 
better performance.

>     Lisp used to be the king, but I'm sure if you look at the rate over 
> the last 2 years, Haskell exceeds it.

I don't know about that - ever heard of Emacs?

Post a reply to this message

>> (E.g., XKCD makes several references to Lisp and Python, but never once
>> mentions Haskell.)
> 
> But it gets talked about in xkcd's forum.

The Bellman-Ford algorithm gets talked about in that forum. Ever heard 
of it? I haven't.

Oh, and something called "Firefly"...

Post a reply to this message

>> "Despite its distance from traditional programming, and its relative 
>> lack of common use, Haskell has become one of the most talked-about 
>> languages on the Internet."
>>
>> Um, WTF? No it hasn't!
> 
> It is in this newsgroup. We even have two whole subnewsgroups devoted to 
> it even though this is a server about a totally different language.

Heh. One person talking to himself doesn't count as "discussion", 
methinks. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a812918$1@news.povray.org>,
Invisible wrote:

>>> (E.g., XKCD makes several references to Lisp and Python, but never once
>>> mentions Haskell.)
>> 
>> But it gets talked about in xkcd's forum.
>
> The Bellman-Ford algorithm gets talked about in that forum. Ever heard 
> of it? I haven't.
>
> Oh, and something called "Firefly"...

And raptors! What on Earth are those creatures? They come through your
window! Scary.

Post a reply to this message

>>>> (E.g., XKCD makes several references to Lisp and Python, but never once
>>>> mentions Haskell.)
>>> But it gets talked about in xkcd's forum.
>> The Bellman-Ford algorithm gets talked about in that forum. Ever heard 
>> of it? I haven't.
>>
>> Oh, and something called "Firefly"...
> 
> And raptors! What on Earth are those creatures? They come through your
> window! Scary. 

Oh, *that* at least makes sense. Go watch Jurassic Park. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a814f7b$1@news.povray.org>,
Invisible wrote:

>>>>> (E.g., XKCD makes several references to Lisp and Python, but never once
>>>>> mentions Haskell.)
>>>> But it gets talked about in xkcd's forum.
>>> The Bellman-Ford algorithm gets talked about in that forum. Ever heard 
>>> of it? I haven't.
>>>
>>> Oh, and something called "Firefly"...
>> 
>> And raptors! What on Earth are those creatures? They come through your
>> window! Scary. 
>
> Oh, *that* at least makes sense. Go watch Jurassic Park. ;-)

I know. :-) (Even though I never watched it.)

I love the raptors. I might even watch this jurassic movie someday
just to see them in motion pictures. Such is the effect of word of
mouth.

Post a reply to this message

>>> And raptors! What on Earth are those creatures? They come through your
>>> window! Scary. 
>> Oh, *that* at least makes sense. Go watch Jurassic Park. ;-)
> 
> I know. :-) (Even though I never watched it.)
> 
> I love the raptors. I might even watch this jurassic movie someday
> just to see them in motion pictures. Such is the effect of word of
> mouth. 

The movement of the raptors in particular isn't very believable. Perhaps 
just because they move around way, way more than any of the other CGI 
characters. The raptor's mass seems wrong somehow, and the balance 
questionable. (Not that anybody's seen a real velociraptor move... But 
then, *real* velociraptors where nowhere near as big as those seen in 
the film.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> The movement of the raptors in particular isn't very believable. Perhaps 
> just because they move around way, way more than any of the other CGI 
> characters. The raptor's mass seems wrong somehow, and the balance 
> questionable. (Not that anybody's seen a real velociraptor move... But 
> then, *real* velociraptors where nowhere near as big as those seen in 
> the film.)

Jurrasic Park's notion of the velociraptor is also considered flawed 
now, as it was determined that they had feathers, according to some 
fossil some scientists found.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> The movement of the raptors in particular isn't very believable. 
>> Perhaps just because they move around way, way more than any of the 
>> other CGI characters. The raptor's mass seems wrong somehow, and the 
>> balance questionable. (Not that anybody's seen a real velociraptor 
>> move... But then, *real* velociraptors where nowhere near as big as 
>> those seen in the film.)
> 
> Jurrasic Park's notion of the velociraptor is also considered flawed 
> now, as it was determined that they had feathers, according to some 
> fossil some scientists found.

The real velociraptor was smaller, had feathers, was of low 
intelligence, never lived in Montanna, and was basically nothing like in 
the film, yes.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:17:28 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> (E.g., XKCD makes several references to Lisp and Python, but never
>>> once mentions Haskell.)
>> 
>> But it gets talked about in xkcd's forum.
> 
> The Bellman-Ford algorithm gets talked about in that forum. Ever heard
> of it? I haven't.

In that forum. :-)

> Oh, and something called "Firefly"...

Yes, that I'm familiar with.  Good show, you should perhaps watch it 
sometime.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a81758f$1@news.povray.org>,
Invisible wrote:

> The real velociraptor was smaller, had feathers, was of low 
> intelligence, never lived in Montanna, and was basically nothing like in 
> the film, yes.

LOL! Hollywood's so accurate!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>> And raptors! What on Earth are those creatures? They come through your
> >>> window! Scary. 
> >> Oh, *that* at least makes sense. Go watch Jurassic Park. ;-)
> > 
> > I know. :-) (Even though I never watched it.)
> > 
> > I love the raptors. I might even watch this jurassic movie someday
> > just to see them in motion pictures. Such is the effect of word of
> > mouth. 

> The movement of the raptors in particular isn't very believable. Perhaps 
> just because they move around way, way more than any of the other CGI 
> characters. The raptor's mass seems wrong somehow, and the balance 
> questionable. (Not that anybody's seen a real velociraptor move... But 
> then, *real* velociraptors where nowhere near as big as those seen in 
> the film.)

  Watch the third movie if you want better raptors. (Personally I like it.
It's one of the very few third parts which are actually good.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 08/11/09 03:16, Invisible wrote:
>>> From what I've seen, Lisp, Earlang and Clean get *way* more publicity
>>> than little old Haskell. Even ML is more widely known.
>>
>> Hadn't heard of Clean till today.
>
> Yeah, Erlang is more widely known.
	
	And as an FYI, the only place I encounter people talking about Erlang 
is on this newsgroup (namely, Darren). Haskell I see elsewhere.

>> Lisp used to be the king, but I'm sure if you look at the rate over
>> the last 2 years, Haskell exceeds it.
>
> I don't know about that - ever heard of Emacs?

	I meant exceeds it in terms of online posts about it.

-- 
Whose cruel idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have a "S" in it?

Post a reply to this message

On 11-8-2009 10:18, Invisible wrote:
>>> "Despite its distance from traditional programming, and its relative 
>>> lack of common use, Haskell has become one of the most talked-about 
>>> languages on the Internet."
>>>
>>> Um, WTF? No it hasn't!
>>
>> It is in this newsgroup. We even have two whole subnewsgroups devoted 
>> to it even though this is a server about a totally different language.
> 
> Heh. One person talking to himself doesn't count as "discussion", 
> methinks. ;-)

I think you are confusing yourself with aQ

<ducks/>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
> Yes, that I'm familiar with.  Good show, you should perhaps watch it 
> sometime.

Definitely so.

BTW, I found the movie not so great. It was ok, but didn't have what I 
liked most about the TV show. Maybe some more serenity (literally) would 
have done good (and less death and dying among the crew of course).

Too sad it got scraped after so few episodes - another great show ruined 
by short-sighted TV bosses. Like "Space: Above and Beyond" - another one 
of my all time TV favorites (and soon to be an addition to my DVD 
collection). "Band of Brothers" ranks on par with them, too (if not even 
better), though it's a totally different genre of course.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:23:41 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> Yes, that I'm familiar with.  Good show, you should perhaps watch it
>> sometime.
> 
> Definitely so.
> 
> BTW, I found the movie not so great. It was ok, but didn't have what I
> liked most about the TV show. Maybe some more serenity (literally) would
> have done good (and less death and dying among the crew of course).

I liked the movie, but actually didn't get to see the release version 
until after the DVD came out.  We got to go to a pre-release screening of 
it, and not all the sound effects or music were finished when we saw it.

But there was a lot in the TV series that didn't make it in, and of 
course too bad about what happened to a couple of the main characters 
(trying not to spoil) - I think that affected the feel quite a lot, too.  
River still kicked ass, though, and that's always fun to watch. :-)

> Too sad it got scraped after so few episodes - another great show ruined
> by short-sighted TV bosses. 

Agreed.

> Like "Space: Above and Beyond" - another one
> of my all time TV favorites (and soon to be an addition to my DVD
> collection). "Band of Brothers" ranks on par with them, too (if not even
> better), though it's a totally different genre of course.

I remember watching a few eps of S:AaA but never really got into it.  My 
younger brother loves Band of Brothers, though - he's on a big WWII kick 
at the moment because my dad was in Europe for part of it (though looking 
at his discharge paperwork, only about 7 months or so, right around the 
time the war ended).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/11/09 16:23, clipka wrote:
> BTW, I found the movie not so great. It was ok, but didn't have what I

	It was the contrary for me. The series was good, but the movie aimed to 
be great, and succeeded.


-- 
Wear short sleeves!  Support your right to bare arms!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> "Despite its distance from traditional programming, and its relative 
> lack of common use, Haskell has become one of the most talked-about 
> languages on the Internet."
> 
> Um, WTF? No it hasn't!

Whenever people refer to anything as "the most talked-about," they are 
referring to the specific areas which they frequent, and apparently are 
forgetting that there is a world outside of the one they know.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

> Whenever people refer to anything as "the most talked-about," they are 
> referring to the specific areas which they frequent, and apparently are 
> forgetting that there is a world outside of the one they know.

Yeah, Andrew is probably right. Though there's a decrease in intrest
in traditional programming languages lately.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=haskell+programming%2C+python+programming%2C+c+programming%2C+basic+programming%2C+pascal+programming&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=1

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood schrieb:
> Yeah, Andrew is probably right. Though there's a decrease in intrest
> in traditional programming languages lately.
>
http://www.google.com/trends?q=haskell+programming%2C+python+programming%2C+c+programming%2C+basic+programming%2C+pascal+programming&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=1


Given where the vast majority of searches for the traditional 
programming languages originate geographically, maybe all that this 
graph shows is the saturation of 2nd and 3rd world countries with people 
skilled enough to know enough of the basics that they don't have to 
google for these terms on a frequent basis anymore...

Post a reply to this message

>> The movement of the raptors in particular isn't very believable. Perhaps 
>> just because they move around way, way more than any of the other CGI 
>> characters. The raptor's mass seems wrong somehow, and the balance 
>> questionable. (Not that anybody's seen a real velociraptor move... But 
>> then, *real* velociraptors where nowhere near as big as those seen in 
>> the film.)
> 
>   Watch the third movie if you want better raptors. (Personally I like it.
> It's one of the very few third parts which are actually good.)

In the second movie in particular, they seemed like very clumsy 
creatures. Their movements looks implausible to the eye. (Which, 
obviously, isn't a conclusive result. Maybe it only looks fake because 
you know it *is* fake...) I don't remember much of the third film. Aside 
from the absurdity of hearing a cellphone from *inside* a 40-tonne 
animal. :-P

Post a reply to this message

>>>> From what I've seen, Lisp, Earlang and Clean get *way* more publicity
>>>> than little old Haskell. Even ML is more widely known.
>>>
>>> Hadn't heard of Clean till today.
>>
>> Yeah, Erlang is more widely known.
>     
>     And as an FYI, the only place I encounter people talking about 
> Erlang is on this newsgroup (namely, Darren). Haskell I see elsewhere.

Mmm, interesting. I heard of Erlang way, way before I knew Haskell 
existed. The whole "Ericson uses Erlang for all its mission-critical 
infrastructure, which is a massive vote of confidence for FP". Except 
that, obviously, it isn't, since Erlang is about as functional as Lisp - 
i.e., not very.

It seems Haskell is everybody's least-favourit language.

>>> Lisp used to be the king, but I'm sure if you look at the rate over
>>> the last 2 years, Haskell exceeds it.
>>
>> I don't know about that - ever heard of Emacs?
> 
>     I meant exceeds it in terms of online posts about it.

Maybe.

Maybe that just means that Haskell is way harder to understand than 
Lisp? :-/

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     And as an FYI, the only place I encounter people talking about 
> Erlang is on this newsgroup (namely, Darren). Haskell I see elsewhere.

It's mostly big in database settings. It's basically best for implementing 
distributed high-load database type stuff, not so good for normal-sized 
programming. If you want literally 100% uptime for 30 years, use Erlang.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> If you want literally 100% uptime for 30 years, use Erlang.

When the hell was Erlang invented? Has it had *time* to run for 30 years?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible schrieb:

>> If you want literally 100% uptime for 30 years, use Erlang.
> 
> When the hell was Erlang invented? Has it had *time* to run for 30 years?

something like 22 years so far.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> If you want literally 100% uptime for 30 years, use Erlang.
> 
> When the hell was Erlang invented? Has it had *time* to run for 30 years?

http://www.erlang.org/course/history.html

Probably not, but certainly 10 or 15 years.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message