upvote
> The only complaint against Haskell was about long compilation times.

There is also this

> How do we make library docs full of copy-pastable, realistic examples, not just beautiful types?

Which is useful for humans as well as agents.

Haskell indeed has a very bad track record of documenting its libraries. For many people, just having the function signatures is documentation enough.

Rust is equally bad at compile times (if not worse) but its standards for documentation is at another level

reply
> For many people, just having the function signatures is documentation enough.

You make a fair point about a documentation gap. The first step is always defining the problem. Wanting to add lots of realistic examples sounds like a wish for more tutorial or beginner-friendly content. Do you see the problem differently?

On the other hand, a given pure function type only has only so many possible implementations — why tools such as djinn and MagicHaskeller exist or why Hoogle is actually useful, unlike the horror of searching for every `void (*)(const char *)` in C.

https://hackage.haskell.org/package/djinn

https://hackage.haskell.org/package/MagicHaskeller

https://hoogle.haskell.org/

From that perspective, Haskell docs tend to be more expert-friendly — perhaps a rationalization, granted — which seems ideally suited for an in-IDE model to help bridge between developer intent and typechecked code. However, this comes at the expense of putting in the reps to rewire the developer’s brain to think in functional terms and the resulting mind opening and horizon expansion to think new thoughts she wasn’t capable of even considering. In these days of LLMs, fretting over that particular opportunity cost may be thinking nostalgically about the loss of craftsmanship in fine, well-balanced buggy whips.

In the limit now, will all programming be strictly literate?

reply
> Rust is equally bad at compile times

OCaml enters the room...

reply
Sounds a bit like surrender here.

There's no reason to read the code anymore.

The LLMs produce it inhumanly fast.

They can usually debug and fix problems faster than Haskell can compile the project.

Meanwhile the open source communities are in basic denial about AI, so trying to change things by making compilation faster or advancing a Haskell interpreter are going to meet with fierce resistance.

Whatever. Give up. Just ship Python.

I sympathize.

reply