Comment by raphinou

For me, Haskell's image and ideal of purity are what made it difficult when I started out. I tried learning the language by reimplementing a program I'd previously done imperatively, that was (in hindsight) obviously hard to do in a plain pure way, ended up learning about zippers and knot-tying to do something in a less efficient and more confusing way than just using something like STArray because I had this idea from reading about Haskell that this was not only a good way to do things, but would be magically fast because GHC. (It was not.)

These days I'd just do such a task more-or-less imperatively in Haskell, and I would be well guided by the types in doing so. But I also feel like you have to make a few such mistakes if you want to get a good intuition and taste for when it's good do things purely and when imperatively.

You gotta remember people are often picking languages based on what they can easily find out about it and extrapolating/guessing about what problems they'll run into with their expected use.

A few years ago on here I had an interesting conversation with someone who wasn't going to use rescript for something because they didn't like how it handled object types. I can't remember ever using an object type in rescript; we all just convert js objects to record type in the extern binding. But that's not information easily available to someone who has never used the language.

Same thing here I think. If you don't already have familiarity with this paradigm, it's hard to imagine what using an IO monad for side effects is like. It's not easy to tell how hard it'll be to learn it, how much it may affect the rest of your code, etc. It's easy to imagine someone (shit even me a few years ago) going "eh I'll take the language with the big easy escape hatches just in case."

I honestly don't remember as it was +/-6 years ago. I had started learning Haskell and got to that conclusion. Maybe that I am now more versed in FP I would arrive at another conclusion? I don't know.

Another thing that was hard to grasp for me were the special operators like =<<, ., $, etc. I was using Xmonad, but those operators create a barrier to understanding exactly what happened in the file.

In the end, F# was in my (personal) experience much more approachable, and it let me learn the functional concepts along the way.

What about libraries though? They might force you to use certain monads rather than IO?

Haskell taught me the important differences between IO and parity and forever influenced the way I program.

Even so the complexity here and the sheer number of mind bending concepts makes me not want to use it.

I should have mentioned in the message, but I was looking for a strongly typed language. I was an avid-user of dynamically-typed languages, but that particular Ruby on Rails app became unmaintainable, and part of the culprit was due to the dynamic typing. I hoped that using a statically typed language would make it easier to maintain a complex app in the long term. And I must say that it totally materialised, to the point that I don't want to develop in dynamically typed languages anymore.

Here's an example: as I said in my original message, I was a complete stranger to the dotnet ecosystem, and I learned the F# language at the same time. And I decided to develop the app as a library project to be used by the web app. I completely missed the prevalence of the async approach in the dotnet, and all my code was synchronous. One day, about half-way in the project, I realised I needed to switch to async code. Had this happened in a dynamically typed project, it would have been hell for me. Maybe it's me that can't grasp a project well enough, but I need the type-guardrails to find my way in large refactorings. And with the strong types, large refactorings can be done confidently. They don't replace tests, but make the refactoring process much more smooth.

The app is open source and its code is at: https://gitlab.com/myowndb/myowndb It doesn't have a lot of users, not the least due to lack of marketing and polishing the user experience. But I am satisfied of what I learned developing it!

I'm sure it can be the better choice, but for me it was not. It seems there was some incompatibility between me and Scala. I find it such a complex language and I never managed to wrap my head around it. As I said F# was my last choice at the start of my evaluation, and Scala was high on the list due to the Java ecosystem. But in the end it didn't work out for me.

F# on the JVM would be great though!

I think Clojure is the better option if you want to do FP using the JVM ecosystem. The problem (for me, anyway) I've run into with Scala is that it supports both functional programming and object-oriented programming. Every code base I've worked on in Scala has ended up being a hodgepodge of both, which I find annoying.

However, the best functional programming language is, of course, Elixir. :D