Greg Michaelson wrote:
> If Microsoft can popularise the use of Haskell then we should welcome that
> instead of pillorying Simon.
I did by no means intend to pillory Simon. I have great respect for him
as a
researcher and I am confident that he has considered his move
carefully. But he
will probably not be able to control what his future employer could do
to Haskell
if they want to (Step 3 according to Wolfgang Beck)
> It seems somewhat unreasonable to complain that:
> a) the real world ignores well designed and engineered languages
> b) real world use corrupts well designed and engineered languages
> Languages which don't enter popular usage either disappear or moulder
> in tiny temples, tended by ageing priests. Languages evolve in the true
> Darwinian sense and the real world is a much more brutal fitness function
> than academia.
I agree, in principle. What we need is the right balance. A language
that is 100%
"real world" has a tendency to become "contaminated" with all kinds of
stuff to
try to meet everybody's needs. The result, however, is often a mess that
is good
for nobody. A bit like in politics. A 100% academic language is often
too focused
on theoretical aspects and lacks practical fitness. Haskell has its
problems that
probably would be solved faster if industry was more involved. More
extensive
libraries, faster and smaller executables, a general exception
mechanism, etc.
Like probably every other Haskell fan in the world I do want Haskell to
enter the
real world. Also that of Microsoft. But this must not result in Haskell
becoming
another "Visual Basic": practical and popular but proprietary and ugly.
The right
balance can only be reached if Haskell remains free and in control of
the Haskell
community, not a single company.
Joergen
