Is it true that Haskell programmers are the best programmers in the industry?

Is it true that Haskell programmers are the best programmers in the industry?

My professor was shilling me this recently and i want to find out if its true. He basically went over how Haskell devs are pretty much gods , very cordial people always willing to help ,have amazing intelligence (Can calculate high level algorithmic complexities on the spot) , and how they are overall heavily underrated in the programming world.Is this true?

Attached: haskell-logo.png (397x131, 7K)

I'm sure he just mispronounced Smalltalk, user.

no. Even if haskell is the best language (there is no best language) there are still douchebags writing it. In fact, it might even potentially (maybe) depend on what type of people you work with.

It's a smaller pool of devs so there may be some truth to that. As the size of any group increases the collective IQ plummets dramatically.

>Can calculate high level algorithmic complexities on the spot

Because pure functional style add complexity and lazy evaluation could altere complexity.

Toy Eratosthenes sieve in Haskell is way way slow, pure like hashmap struct begin O(log n) or worst, several algortihms end up begin no cache friendly...

You need be very smart to fix shit in Haskell don't means haskell make smart programmers.

>Haskell programmers
>in the industry
what industry? if you're talking about the shilling industry then yeah sure

>My professor

Unless he's a lead researcher with over 200000 citations you shouldn't give two shits what a CS prof has to say.

>I don't need no CS teachers telling me what to learn to get a CS degree
>t. Pajeet

Attached: 1522966615165.png (457x500, 59K)

argument from authority
guess I'm just retarded

Attached: ov.png (501x504, 11K)

functional programming well is more difficult than OOP programming well, but each have their place. your professor is a faggot.

It's not necessarily more difficult. It's just that a typical CS grad has years of practice writing imperative programs and then out of a sudden they are introduced to Haskell, which is a particularly tough FP language for a beginner. If freshmen were taught, say Lisp or Scala or OCaml, nobody would think FP is hard. It's just different.

Only people with big brains know how to use Haskell.

As with all purist languages, they are shit.
The fact that you have to stick to their paradigm makes the language inefficient for many different tasks and increase the difficulty of creating frameworks to give them more tools to develop more complex stuff and so on.
I don't give a shit if you can filter all even numbers in two words. If you can't use the language to create a moderately big desktop app or adapt it to work via web.

Whats so good about smalltalk? Cool a esolang thats too integraded into its ide to be tolerable

if you're legitimately taking the bullshit anons that don't know what they're talking about are spewing, without actually learning such languages yourself to see what they can do, then you really are retarded.

Retards have been talking shit about functional programming since forever, and yet it's still around, and languages are increasingly demanded to incorporate functional concepts. The writing is on the wall, and everyone involved in actually making the next generation of tools in the industry has been seeing it for a while now. You'd have to be pretty fucking lazy and stubborn to ignore the blatantly obvious paradigm shift that's been happening over the past several years.

Smalltalk isn't an esolang by any means.

Mathfag here, this is Jow Forums, so it is probably a very stupid thing to try to answer this, anyways, here it is:

This days you can complete a two week bootcamp and become a programmer.

Haskell is different, it takes a lot more training and effort to be able of making a program in Haskell. So someone that actually goes through all of that to the point of actually being of able of making true complex applications in Haskell is more likely than not a "top programmer".

Most of the people online that talk about Haskell have very limited experience with it, or don't really understand what they are even talking about. I've read many books on FP and Haskell written by people with phds that are full of shit, it's crazy, people that studied CS for decades and FP for years and they don't understand jack shit about it.

Or you have people like and No user, FP is not more difficult than OOP, OOP is a failed dogshit paradigm and there is no good reason to use it over FP (unless you are programming trivially simple systems like Christmas lights), if you can come up with any, then you simply don't understand what FP is.

And no user, FP is not more inefficient than OOP, efficiency and performance have nothing to with FP nor OOP, if you think that's the case, then you simple don't understand what neither FP nor OOP are.

The way that I see it:

Most CS academics using Haskell, don't understand what they are doing and are full of shit.

Most working programmers using Javascript or Python or whatever imperative language "functionally", don't understand what they are doing and are full of shit.

All working regular programmers defending OOP and imperative programming are beyond redemption.

Attached: 1521495275487.jpg (576x1024, 76K)

Why are you talking like OOP and FP aren't orthogonal to each other? You can have both OOP (inheritance, polymorphism, encapsulation, message passing) and FP. Scala, OCaml and Lisp come to mind. You are gravely mistaking OOP with imperative programming. Just because the prototypical OOP languages are imperative (smalltalk, c++, java, python) doesn't mean they cannot be declarative/functional too.

First of all, Alan Kay who is the one who coined OOP, includes Lisp as one of the best OOP languages.

Look I don't mean to be a jerk, the fact is that most people misuse the term OOP. Lots of them write procedural programs with OOP languages such as Java and think they're doing OOP. They aren't. FP is fantastic for certain things, but when it comes to large scale project nothing beats (proper) OOP.

You're a mathfag so you should be open to further your education. I suggest the book Object Thinking by David West. At least download it from libgen and skim over it. You're not wrong, in general I agree with your post, but you're severely mistaken when it comes to OOP. Especially because you're like I said confusing OOP with imperative programming.

So? What about the rest of what I said?
Smalltalk somehow manages less application than haskell

I'm not the person you replied to and know nothing about smalltalk, just wanted to say that smalltalk is pretty popular and probably used more than haskell in the industry.

>functional programming well is more difficult than OOP programming

Nah, one can argue that properly implemented OO is way harder. Theres a reason why so many brainlets on this board hate Java and C++

>having to spend more time and effort to do the same thing in an easier way
It's like saying you want to build a house using only a hammer, nails and wood. It may end up looking and feeling better, but it's not worth it and will generally look worst.

>Someone that actually goes through all of that
You literally believe that learning haskell is a pain in the ass. If you think anyone would use haskell to write a big project over oop, that is because you have never even tried writing anything complex.
That is why OOP is the dominant paradigm, you don't need to suffer to program. Programming languages are a tool, and they should help the programmer to do stuff. The programs are already complex enough to add up the difficulty of the tool you are using. Which by the way, I don't defend in any way pajeets writing shit code on OOP.

>OOP is a failed dogshit paradigm
Literally 80% of the programs you are using right now were made with an OOP language. I would like you to name a few written in haskell that I use in my everyday life.

>all working regular programmers defending oop and imperative programming are beyond redemption.
That is because you have no idea how a computer works. Why don't you try writing an operative system, kernel, drivers, any low level shit with haskell? I bet you wouldn't even know how does the computer stores floating point numbers.

>Btw, got sauce?

Thanks for your kind words user.

But where do we put OOP?

Of all the features you mentioned: inheritance, polymorphism, encapsulation, message passing. All of them have clear operational semantics... Except for inheritance, and I don't think it is a coincide that it is precisely inheritance the biggest issue most imperative-heavy languages like the ones you mentioned have. So, I at least put OOP entirely on the imperative style domain, because that makes more sense.

Of course, you can embellish OOP on a declarative style, but that's only possible because you can embellish "imperability" (state management, sequentiality) on a denotational context, but that doesn't change the semantics, in this case, the operational, because that the soundest classification, at least to me. That is not a crazy idea, RIGHT? RIGHT?

Also, for more pragmatical reasons, there are better ways to do whatever you wanted to with OOP on the more general FP. I'm sorry, but I honestly believe that.

>FP is fantastic for certain things, but when it comes to large scale project nothing beats (proper) OOP.

I'm currently a grad student and I'm working with a lot of CS people, and this is one those things I heard a lot.

What makes OOP so magical for large scale projects? On FP we have topoi, which is roughly speaking a logical way to represent abstract structures like physical space-time.

What does OOP has? a cute way to encapsulate and communicate different "objects, which a couple more features for code re-usability?

...continuation

Sure for something complex like, banking infrastructure, it will probably take a good team a year of full time work to correctly construct the topoi (because you only need ONE). But once you have it, you can add virtually anything to the system, it will compose with everything perfectly by the mathematical definition of the structure. So spending that year modeling something that will work and the trivially expendable might be worth it.

I know topoi are not exactly mainstream these days (and probably won't be for another decade or two with any luck). Even physicists are just starting to look at it to fix the mess of their string theories (and other things).

But they exists.

And are great.

The sad thing user is that all the responses you gave me I've heard for other people, including very smart CS professors and talented programmers.

I don't have any source on anything I said, more over, I have many that contradict me.

And yet, I believe every single one of those people and books, including you, are fundamentally wrong.

What would you say it the key thing to help you learn to understand Haskell properly? I've literally just started looking into it and have gotten back into self-studying maths but feel like I don't get the thought process needed to program in Haskell.

>I don't have any source on anything I said, more over, I have many that contradict me.
>And yet, I believe every single one of those people and books, including you, are fundamentally wrong.
Oh wow, it's fucking nothing, from a guy with an ego the size of Pluto.

Is Haskell the new Rust?

>professor
>shilling FP
No surprise there.

>This days you can complete a two week bootcamp and become a programmer.
That's what bootcamps idiots think.
And usually they teach languages like JS in bootcamps, which are technically FP languages.

If you think you can learn a language like C++ in two weeks then you don't understand C++.

17 years in the industry and I havent even met a haskell programmer.

writing """""enterprise""""" spaghetti for a medium-sized company/IT department is not industry, user

more industry than shilling haskell from your basesment

not shilling haskell my basement - in fact, not even shilling haskell. Just came here to say that it's better than whatever overengineered crap everyone seems to be using in the """""industry""""" today, and to see you fags admit to be using tools of subpar quality.

i know that smalltalk and lisp is used quite a lot for ai stuff. i've heard that haskell is used by math profs but haven't met one that would myself. most mathematicians use either mathematica or matlab.

It's a fucking meme language, professors are shilling all kinds of retarded shit that no one in the industry would touch with a ten foot pole.

I would definitely say it's more difficult than some languages but people typically exaggerate how difficult Haskell is to learn because they want to feel superior knowing it. Haskell has some definite benefits and definite drawbacks. It's a purist language so it doesn't like to compromise to make things actually work. Haskell is used somewhat in the financial sector and Facebook has contributed some interesting stuff to Haskell. Personally, I find Haskell really fun to use for most tasks, but if you need to worry about performance at all you're better off using another language.

Dumbest shit in the entire thread.
So much text that essentially boils down to "I know more than these people but can't give any reasons why"

Eat shit

Not all problems have elegant solutions. There is nothing wrong with haskell, But Its not good in production.

>if you can come up with any
Game dev

Good luck with your immutable data structures

>main selling point of haskell is how pretty the implementation of quicksort and sieve of erastotenes can be
>turns out those beautiful implementations are wrong and/or inefficient and the real thing is much uglier

top kek

>CS professors tell me I'm wrong all the time
>experienced programmers tell me I'm wrong
>people in this thread tell me I'm wrong
>lol fags don't know what they're talking about, I'm a "mathfag" - the only type of person on this planet capable of understanding anything beyond HS calculus