Sssnake

>>random redditard

>OK, this is HN.

I believe that was his/her point. I'm clearly not the first person to have noticed that your contributions are few and far between, with much garbage taking up that in between. Your posts would be welcomed on reddit, here they serve only to drag HN down.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. You made a bizarre assumption that the financial world is hard for haskell to break into, when both history and the current behavior of financial firms says otherwise.

You just quoted something saying exactly what I said, while acting like you disagree. Once again, a license is special permission. That is precisely what it is, that is the whole point. Saying "you don't have to have special permission because you get special permission" is insane.

Haskell is already heavily used in finance, and they chose to go this route because all the feedback they were getting from financial firms wanting to use haskell. Your little bubble doesn't generalize to the whole world.

>so why an arbitrary restriction saying once X years are up, you can't sell it anymore (or can't effectively since anyone can have it for free).

That is backwards. We set up an arbitrary restriction saying people can't reproduce it, and that is the only reason this artificially created business exists. There is no reason for this arbitrary restriction to extend indefinitely. The business would exist just fine with 20 year copyright, so we should do that.

Yes, it is needed. That is what the license is, special permission.

>And Haskell's rules are a pain.

How?

I don't know how you think that was the point. He doesn't say anything like that. In fact he takes the exact opposite position when dealing with parsing, saying to just write more code. Why would something which literally requires no extra effort (producing useful error messages without semicolons) be misdirected effort, while writing a more complex parser is cool?

I think it is worth considering that perhaps obvious architecture is the wrong thing to make, rather than existing languages being wrong for making it.

>and the brags need to be objectively accurate

No, it just needs to be convincing. Plenty of convincing lies (or unproven claims) are used to sell programming languages.

This is a good example of how hn is suffering from the real slashdot effect lately. That is, people posting authoritative sounding but completely wrong information and getting upvoted for it.