You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There are times decisions made in PS have been answered with "That's how they did it in Haskell, so we'll do that here, too." I think that's a good argument because Haskell got a lot of things right. However, I think it got some things wrong. Should we clarify when we will follow Haskell and when we will diverge?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think that PureScript is at a stage where "that's how Haskell does it" cannot be a justification for anything on it's own. My observation is that most Haskellisms come from early library development, where it was more important to have quantity vs "quality". I don't mean to say anything is low quality, just that it's significantly less cognitive weight to crib an existing interface rather than bikeshed. Unfortunately, I think that left us with a lot of paper cut inconsistencies (null vs isEmpty, void, etc).
There are times decisions made in PS have been answered with "That's how they did it in Haskell, so we'll do that here, too." I think that's a good argument because Haskell got a lot of things right. However, I think it got some things wrong. Should we clarify when we will follow Haskell and when we will diverge?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: