You are making your bias WAY too obvious by including a bunch of niche software with tiny to nonexistent userbases as "major killer project"s just because they happen to be written in clojure. Why is one of the official clojure guys so interested in spreading FUD about haskell anyways? Haskell people have largely positive things to say about clojure. Shouldn't you be more focused on spreading FUD about scala?
Because those people seem unable to present an argument to support that stance. At best you get "but simple". All of those things are simple. At worst you get outright nonsense that demonstrates that people like Russ and Rob genuinely do not understand the things they are dismissing.
>This is why unit testing took over the dynamic language world more than a decade ago.
So you have to spend a ton of time writing redundant and in-exhaustive tests to work around the lack of a type system, but the complaint leveled against having a type system is that "satisfying the type checker takes too long"?
>because you just said "with better defined as has more static typing
No I did not. Haskell's type sistem is not "more static" than javas. It is more powerful. This makes it better. There are not varying degrees of "staticness". There are varying degrees of expressiveness. Haskell is on the "very expressive" end of that scale. So it makes sense to assume that haskell people consider more expressive type systems to be better.
Javascript does not define the implementation details. It does not have to be interpreted, and in fact I don't believe any modern implementation is interpreted. Javascript is generally compiled to byte code which is then run in a VM, or native machine code (V8 at least does this). There is no reason javascript could not have a static type system, there are statically typed scripting languages. It is dynamically typed by deliberate decision, not "we can't do it any other way".
Why would that happen? Ignorantly bashing haskell strawmen is pretty common here. Btw, while you hit two of the biggest ones, you did forget to complain about it being "academic" and thus unusable for "real world" programming. That should be pretty much standard by now.
>It's sad that we should expect Haskell users to be chauvinistic about static typing.
We don't expect that. We expect them to recognize that better type systems are better than worse type systems. Which seems pretty obvious when stated that way.
>I have yet to read anyone who advocates for dynamic typing describe static typing as a "flaw".
Try looking on the internet. Every "static vs dynamic" argument has 99% of the dynamic side arguing that static typing is bad because java's type system limits them and doesn't prevent any bugs.
Are you sure you aren't confusing it with K&R style with the argument names on a different line? That would indicate old code. Having the return type on a different line is incredibly common, virtually every C project with decent code uses it.
Odd. I have cookies disabled period, and only enable them for specific domains where I want to log in to something. I still get constant ads on youtube unless I use an ad blocker.
I love that those of us who give a shit about the users can use the mobile trend to push good user-centric design on otherwise unwilling marketing weasels. I just wish they would stop pretending it is in any way unique to mobile users. Almost all that stuff is just ordinary "give the user a site that doesn't suck", and applies to any user, regardless of the device they are using at any particular moment. "Make your menu simple" and "give relevant search results" and "don't put up registration walls to prevent your users from giving you money" have been well known for over a decade. Take this opportunity to push good web design for your entire site, not just for mobile users.
The tools in question, and the OS in question, bear little to no resemblance to unix or its tools. Blaming unix for the monstrosities that it inadvertently spawned isn't really fair.
That someone was mistaken. How exactly do you think they "struggled to maintain" a fork of software that was barely active in the first place? How does "apache but chrooted by default" constitute "frankenapache" exactly? Given that their struggling was so clear to you, could you point me to something that would make it clear to the rest of us?
Are you referring to the article or your own post?