Haskell types are ... hard. Imagine a Ruby or JS programmer trying to use Haskell and getting frustrated when they have to, you know, actually care what they're doing.
Spoken as a user of all three/four languages mentioned.
> Haskell types are ... hard. Imagine a Ruby or JS programmer trying to use Haskell and getting frustrated when they have to, you know, actually care what they're doing.
IME -- and I used Ruby and JS a long time before starting Haskell -- you have to care about types in Ruby and JS, too, and, if anything, its more mental load in the dynamic languages, because you don't have a compiler pointing out your mistakes for you, you just have to reason through things manually when your code doesn't work as expected -- or think things through very carefully on your own so it doesn't break unexpectedly.
Though some of the error messages produced by Haskell compilers -- well, GHC in particular, don't know as much about others -- can be downright cryptic, but usually they'll at least point in you in the right direction.
This, for me, is one of the biggest selling points of Go. Say what you like about the language being dull or missing modern features, my debugging time has been drastically reduced thanks to the finickiness of the compiler and it's meaningful error messages.
Sadly Haskell is still on my "todo" list though. One day, I'll get round to learning it....
This is my big problem when I'm working in Ruby or JS and it's someone else's code. Every time I look at a new function I have no clue what the parameters actually are without spelunking around to figure it out. I always feel like I'm wading through a big grey morass with no discernible form.
Haskell types are ... hard. Imagine a Ruby or JS programmer trying to use Haskell and getting frustrated when they have to, you know, actually care what they're doing.
Spoken as a user of all three/four languages mentioned.