jonathanpoulter

I purchased these for my wife years ago, they’re excellent.

A pretty critical application

Ease of testing is the most obvious benefit.

A "pure" function is one whose result is simply based on its inputs, no dependency on external state/IO etc. Same inputs, same outputs guaranteed.

These types of functions, are really easy to reason about and unit test. State is often messy.

I completely agree with this sentiment.

Writing good Haskell always seemed harder to me than something like Python. The amount I'd have to think before beginning to type was a lot, but it always seemed worth it, as there was always potential always for a beautiful solution to any problem.

As a result, before I write code in any production language I give a little more thought to what I'm about to write, which I think ends up with a better result.

Heck, even if Haskell just gave a developer an appreciation for basic functional programming, that would be something that will benefit them for years in my view.

This seems like such a significant problem for the language and has been around since the beginning of time. Considering the amount of value that Python adds to companies and individuals around the world, is there a reason that institutions or someone with the means hasn't funded a project to "solve" the GIL problem?

"Progress is not a function of time", this is a really deep quote.

this seems like the real magic here. The author states at the start, automating all of the steps of something can be daunting. But this script can incrementally become a do everything script.

I've read this multiple times, and I'm sure it's an intuive argument. Is it actually true though?