So? The problem is our school systems and or work environments, not our biology.
We are a VERY significant minority of the population, and our institutions are not working for us. We should organize and do something about it instead instead of letting people try to medicate away our differences.
I've argued with a lot of friends about the "buy it for life" meme. I think it overlooks how quickly people change what they want from their things.
Maybe a more healthy meme could be: "Buy high-quality things, but never buy new". If you believe a product is durable, you should be comfortable with buying it used. If you end up not needing the thing anymore, you should be able to sell it again without any waste or loss of value.
People need to stop using the word "hate" and start calling people out whenever they use it. "Hate" just means "blasphemy". Once you make this substitution, discussions like this start to make a lot more sense.
Serious question: If people want to post blasphemy, what's preventing them from doing so? [...] I honestly don’t understand why mainstream social media websites should be allowing that sort of thing.
Thanks and fully and completely understand why and how the current situation happened. And I fully appreciate the efforts people make to alleviate it. My sole concern is that the situation is accurately seen for what it is.
So far, just in these comments I've seen:
1. just use plain cabal
2. use stack, you don't need cabal
3. use gchid
4. haskell+nix is best
5. use hpack
To emphasise again, this is not a severe criticism. I've been around for too long not to know that this is an almost inevitable result of people working in open source with disparate purposes and heterogeneous environments.
PS. I bought HaskellForMac and it's great. It ties you a Haskell version a little older than the latest but that's OK too.
Do be fair, he said "impure language" and not "impure code".
"Looks like we need to let the scholars know - there are 18,300 uses of the non-word "performant" in scholarly papers" <- If that's not sarcasm, something is wrong. Performant is a word!
It is a word, just not an English one it seems! It certainly is a German word. That might explain a lot ;-) It might also explain the many occurrences, as there are many Germans writing papers in English.
It really doesn't have that much in common with Haskell either. It's designed by people who are not oblivious about PL stuff, but it's still pretty thoroughly in the C/C++ world in terms of both syntax and semantics.
It's not a bad thing, but Rust has very little in common with Haskell/Ocaml; aside from stealing a couple of good ideas.
I would say Rust's type system has a lot more in common with Haskell/Ocaml than with C++, at least, although it's not quite as flexible as what Haskell offers (a lack of HKT is painful sometimes).
I think the similarities are mostly superficial. I mean it has (local) type inference, ADTs, and traits (which are sooooorta like type classes). But, as a Haskell programmer, the Rust type system feels very foreign.
No typeclasses (and associated goodness), GADTs, HKTs, Monadic IO, first class functions, generic deriving, higher rank types, existential type, etc. These are bread-and-butter features in day-to-day Haskell work. Rust's type system isn't powerful enough to build the vast majority of the tools that Haskell programmers use every day.
I don't mean this as a criticism; The Rust design seems solid. But different priorities lead to different trade-offs, and the end result is a very different type system.
Traits do a lot of what one can do with typeclasses (they're mostly just different names for the same thing), what differences are you thinking of?
Also, traits objects are existential types, and closures & functions are as first class as they are in Haskell (main difference is a bit more verbosity).
