←back to thread

291 points love2read | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.532s | source
Show context
ActorNightly[dead post] ◴[] No.42477322[source]
[flagged]
CoastalCoder ◴[] No.42477655[source]
Would you mind expanding on this?

It sounds interesting, but I'm not tuned into either community enough to know what parallels you see.

replies(1): >>42499105 #
ActorNightly ◴[] No.42499105[source]
Haskell philosophy is basically asumming that programmers were really bad at parallelism and thread saftey, and thus it was made to address this concern. However because that overarching idea is ideological in nature (i.e not true as a statement about programmers as a whole), the community was prevalent with ideology, using a lot of lambda calculus notation to set itself apart, and making coding in it cumbersome. As a result, nobody bothered to really do anything with it.

Rust has largely the same problem. You see bits of use of it here and there, but its also based in ideology that programmers are bad at managing memory.

From a technical viewpoint, Rust doesnt offer anything that doesnt already exist, while providing a more cumbersome way to code. Which is why its a days are numbered.

replies(1): >>42500529 #
1. tome ◴[] No.42500529[source]
Haskell was most certainly not made to address a concern about programmers being really bad at parallelism and thread safety.
replies(1): >>42501059 #
2. ActorNightly ◴[] No.42501059[source]
It absolutely has. The functional programming paradigm is designed specifically to describe a program withoilut side effects, so you can be sure that execution is deterministic (and thus scalable and parallelizable). There are no other advantages to functional programming.