useCase for hasKell?
>>106805484Gayzm
eCHILD e2BIG eIO
>the first time an underage faggot has seen unix errorcodes
>>106805484I don't know what your image has to do with anything but the biggest usecase for Haskell is wanting code realiability and easy maintenance. Haskell applications don't break as easily and the code is short and easy to maintain. It's also easy to make it run concurrently with multiple cores. One of the killer features is that the compiler knows what functions are pure or not. Functions that return IO have side effects and those that don't, don't have side effects. It's that simple and helps maintenance immensely. The big disadvantage is that developers are not used to pure functional programming.
>>106806176> code realiability and easy maintenance> Haskell
>>106806176code maintanability is not a metric
>>106806176>The big disadvantage is that developers are not used to pure functional programming.That's total horseshit, APL and pure functional variants of it like J have been around for decades at this point. The vast majority of pure functional algorithms just don't work well. Maybe in 100 years computing will have solidified enough to write a library of pure functions that is good for most application and we can limit IO code to only the places it's truly needed, but to put the blame on developers is total bullshit when nobody has written a good library for a language like haskell.
haskell and array languages (and modern functional languages) are a wasteland of ideas. They are trying to popularize combinators at this point FUCKING COMBINATORS. We already have a metalanguage for transforming expressions they are called STATEMENTS and they were invented years after your precious combinators
>>106806216Yes>>106806424Wrong
>>106805484CPosting
>>106806447I don't even understand your point. J is not a pure functional programming language. You injected your own bias in something I didn't write. I didn't mention if developers should be blamed or not, only that Haskell gives you more guarantees. There are entire applications in Haskell, the most well known being pandoc.
>>106806780nofunctional languages code is very hard to extend
>>106806867Wrong. It's much harder to modify and extend OOP code because you're creating hierarchy restrictions, while in pure functional you compose. The type system guarantees that you don't mess up because the compiler doesn't let you and while Java and friends can avoid messing up, the type system isn't as strict, so you can definitely mess up. Finally because there's a clear distinction between pure and unpure, it's very easy to refactor and extend pure code and guarantee it works as you wish with no flaws, while in Java and friends you have no such guarantees.This is a problem if you're not skilled enough in pure functional programming, trying to do everything impure, or if you don't understand the abstractions or composition. Haskell has a step learning curve.
>>106806929nocreating and using extra dependencies for example is not hard in imperative languages and oop has class extension or globals while in pure functional it's a nightmare
>>106806780>>106806929Academic fundamentals loving 115 IQ fanvs>>106806867>>106807096Retarded moneymaxxing industry standard cult enjoyer
>>106807155> Academic > vs> industry thispfp is sounds cool and works in papers onlywhile oop is doing the job as any tool must do
>>106805484>useCase for hasKell?creating natal charts for astrology girlieshttps://www.costarastrology.com/why-haskell
>>106807155the reality is, most people in the world are low IQ. the academics are right that Haskell is objectively superior to most everything before it. Rust literally took the most practical and best parts of it while compromising for low IQ and the practicality of mutability and performance.the reality is in 2025, if you like Haskell, you should consider Rust from an academic and performance reason.
>>106807216Small correction: purely functional programming does work in the industry...... where jeet code monkeys aren't enough, that is>>106807273We are not falling for your trånny propagandaNobody here is going to kill rw boomers for Israel>>106807155Nice I got dubs
>>106807273>90 IQ individual parroting 105 IQ takes he saw on reddit.
>>106807096There's not much difference between adding dependencies in Haskell cabal or stack and adding dependencies in Java Maven or Graddle. Your other argument is not elaborated enough, so I don't think you have enough experience in FP to come up with that conclusion. You're basing that on your lack of experience and bias.
more like haskillyourself
>>106807273I wouldn't say it's about IQ, it's more that you learn imperative first, so true pure FP looks alien.It wasn't just Rust that copied Haskell, Java and C# generics and records are from Haskell. Rust usecase is completely different as it is low level, mostly speaking machine code, while Haskell is higher level than most programming languages, since it abstracts even more than imperative style. I would use Rust if hardware is involved or I'm doing an OS simple tool that means low resources. Haskell assumes you have decent amount of memory and computing power. This is not a flaw, the more resources you have, the better it is to abstract it to take advantage of all of it efficiently. It's extremely difficult to get memory and concurrency right and efficient with no abstractions.Before anyone asks since it's such a controversial topic, low and high level are relative terms. C was once considered high level, compared to assembly that is. Today it's low level, compared to all programming languages. Rust is a bit higher level than C so it's either low or medium level. Haskell is high level for sure. Low level is speaking machine language and high level is speaking human language.
>>106807368Nice dubs!
>>106807508>It wasn't just Rust that copied Haskellin terms of users, it was. Java and Cshart don't have type classes, traits and only recently even got pattern matching that's shitty.
>>106807732You only really noticed now. Java was not born with generics and C# didn't have records. Both copied functional programming from Haskell. In fact Java continues to copy from Haskell. Just because Rust borrowed type classes it doesn't make more Haskell like. I'd argue Scala is more similar to Haskell than Rust, even if it's also Java like, but that's debatable.
