Kneejerk reaction: Please don’t call things this! Haskell code can go wrong. You can the type system to limit your bugs but they won’t go away. These unrealistic claims hurt the community. I know the author knows this and is trying to just tell an awesome story but I have to fight the Java people at my company when I try to introduce a good language. And they tell my bosses statically typed languages like Haskell are full of broken dreams and citing strawmen, that management doesn’t realize is a strawman, about how Haskell and friends won’t actually remove all bugs using titles like this as fodder.
If you just read the titles of news articles then I imagine you might come to a lot of false conclusions. For example your comment seems to be a critique of unrealistic claims that aren’t actually made in the video.
Which is why my criticism was of the talk’s title, which is as far as many people will get. The entire point of my criticism is vague titles such as the one of this videos cause more damage in the long run than a less sensationalist title. The less sensationalist title might get less viewers but it also creates less friction in trying to have a sane discussion with people about the concepts. Just look at Gilad Bracha’s talk “Deconstructing Functional Programming” and all of the nonsense he spews. And people respect him and his opinions! A title like this is just more fodder for someone like him.
The phrase “Well-typed programs can’t go wrong” has a long provenance in the study of type theory (Milner 1978) and isn’t sensationalist at all. Saying that it might unintentionally be misunderstood by someone too lazy to even dig into the submission or know anything about the topic is a very naive criticism.
It’s not naive at all, it’s the result of real world experiences. All I’m saying is that it would be beneficial to the community to write titles such that they are harder to be less misunderstood by the general public. There is a large enough population out there that actually think that a serious claim from the FP community is that static typing makes programs bug free.
If you don’t care about enabling adoption of functional languages in industry, that’s fine. If you haven’t experienced friction in adopting functional languages in industry then I’m jealous. But these criticisms definitely do exist and they definitely make it harder for myself and others.
I have not watched yet (just got up) but:
Kneejerk reaction: Please don’t call things this! Haskell code can go wrong. You can the type system to limit your bugs but they won’t go away. These unrealistic claims hurt the community. I know the author knows this and is trying to just tell an awesome story but I have to fight the Java people at my company when I try to introduce a good language. And they tell my bosses statically typed languages like Haskell are full of broken dreams and citing strawmen, that management doesn’t realize is a strawman, about how Haskell and friends won’t actually remove all bugs using titles like this as fodder.
If you just read the titles of news articles then I imagine you might come to a lot of false conclusions. For example your comment seems to be a critique of unrealistic claims that aren’t actually made in the video.
Which is why my criticism was of the talk’s title, which is as far as many people will get. The entire point of my criticism is vague titles such as the one of this videos cause more damage in the long run than a less sensationalist title. The less sensationalist title might get less viewers but it also creates less friction in trying to have a sane discussion with people about the concepts. Just look at Gilad Bracha’s talk “Deconstructing Functional Programming” and all of the nonsense he spews. And people respect him and his opinions! A title like this is just more fodder for someone like him.
Google “Well-typed programs can’t go wrong”
https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/conor.mcbride/Kleisli.pdf
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/blame/blame.pdf
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Research_papers/Functional_pearls
I’m not actually sure what you are stating in this response, can you rephrase?
The phrase “Well-typed programs can’t go wrong” has a long provenance in the study of type theory (Milner 1978) and isn’t sensationalist at all. Saying that it might unintentionally be misunderstood by someone too lazy to even dig into the submission or know anything about the topic is a very naive criticism.
It’s not naive at all, it’s the result of real world experiences. All I’m saying is that it would be beneficial to the community to write titles such that they are harder to be less misunderstood by the general public. There is a large enough population out there that actually think that a serious claim from the FP community is that static typing makes programs bug free.
If you don’t care about enabling adoption of functional languages in industry, that’s fine. If you haven’t experienced friction in adopting functional languages in industry then I’m jealous. But these criticisms definitely do exist and they definitely make it harder for myself and others.
It’s definitely possible to write code which doesn’t go wrong. Please watch the video.
It’s possible to write code which doesn’t go wrong in any language, this is not a unique feature of Haskell.
Absolutely. Haskell just makes it easier than a lot of others and then others make it even easier.