I'm reading a book on pic related. Did I fall for another meme or am I doing something productive?

I'm reading a book on pic related. Did I fall for another meme or am I doing something productive?

Attached: 1538631248878.png (267x189, 2K)

learning any programming language is productive and useful, some more than others

Not everything is Either Productive Meme, some things are (,) Productive Meme.

Do a sampling of job postings and see how many contain Haskell.

> Don't learn anything unless it can get you a job

You sound poor or like a trust fund baby.

Haskell is an eye opener. You may not do anything productive with haskell but learning it will help you to think differently and that can be applied to solve the problem in your language of choice.

Not strictly Haskell, but any of the pure functional languages fill the void. Haskell just happens to be the one that's closest to pure natural deductive logic. Learning the mathematical theory behind functional languages is really interesting even if it doesn't have a huge amount of practical impact unless you are a language designer.

Shout out to lisp being a fucking abortion that assumed free variable capture was desirable behavior instead of a mistake in your proof, so now it has dynamic scope.

semi-related topic, should i dive into Scala if I know Java reasonably well?

You're doing something produttive for yourself

I haven't personally used Scala, but the JVM is pretty fucking clean so it's worth at least looking at. I have a friend who got way in to it, and he told me that it doesn't have the same mathematical roots as the pure functional languages, but this also means it can accomplish everyday tasks without autistic compromises, make what you will of that.

sounds cool enough, its on the list, probably after babies first web stack for me

haskell is the gateway to rust

I know this is bait, but I have strong feelings about functional languages in general so I'm going for it.
This is only true in the sense that they are both meme languages, so people who eat that shit up use both. If you use Haskell as a means to understand and experiment with program language theory and type theory, then you will understand how close rust's type system is to being really fucking good, and how disappointing it is that it's doesn't realize that potential.

>meme
Any language is by definition a meme.

I meant more that Rust is the only ML-like that has a shot at going mainstream. OCaml and Haskell sure as hell aren’t.

Just use Clojure if you want the JVM and you don't care about having an advanced type system. It's better than fooling yourself with Scala's crippled attempt at imitating an actual type system.

>then you will understand how close rust's type system is to being really fucking good, and how disappointing it is that it's doesn't realize that potential.
This applies word for word if you change "rust" to "haskell".

Yeah I'd agree with that, I still think rust needs to attract the attention of some "proper" PL theorists to beat some of the type system into shape, specifically regarding how function typing is handled, and how first order logic is injected into the type system (last I checked rust didn't support existential types or higher rank types). My knowledge of rust is mostly circa 2016-ish, so some of what I say may be out of date.

I'm studying under a professor right now who published a whole series of research papers dedicated to reworking the entire Haskell type system to match up with the formal logic it draws from under the Curry Howard isomorphism, wh. I'm still learning, but what I've seen so far has really impressed me. I'm curious what problems you see in the system so I can go check then out.

If you're already familiar with functional programming it's just a great language to learn.
If you're not, it's even more important to learn.

>I'm curious what problems you see in the system
No dependent types.

They're pretty far along working on that, there have been a ton of commits building up the dependent type system in the past 12 months, so I have hope for it.

Idris shill pls

"Epic" argument.

Iirc only Emacs lisp is like that.

Even it has lexical scoping these days. I assume he's talking about Lisps from McCarthy's time for some reason.