The idea of managing side effects as a type (monads) still hasn't seemed compelling to me in terms of development time. Here I agree with Liskov in saying that it's a bit over the top[0]. Most of the quality I see with Haskell has to do with strict types, not the handling of I/O errors as types themselves.
Not that I want to bash it.. Learning haskell has actively changed how I approach all my C/C++ development, and gotten me far far far into the weeds of now learning Agda as a prototyping language for designs/semantics[1].
The world may or may not need Haskell. However it's certainly a better place now that it has it.
[0]: She said this at a talk she gave at work.. It was similar or the same as her "The Power of Abstraction" talk, dunno if she makes the same comment in every presentation though.
The idea of managing side effects as a type (monads) still hasn't seemed compelling to me in terms of development time. Here I agree with Liskov in saying that it's a bit over the top[0]. Most of the quality I see with Haskell has to do with strict types, not the handling of I/O errors as types themselves.
Not that I want to bash it.. Learning haskell has actively changed how I approach all my C/C++ development, and gotten me far far far into the weeds of now learning Agda as a prototyping language for designs/semantics[1].
The world may or may not need Haskell. However it's certainly a better place now that it has it.
[0]: She said this at a talk she gave at work.. It was similar or the same as her "The Power of Abstraction" talk, dunno if she makes the same comment in every presentation though.
[1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy5C-mlUQ1w