Taylor Fausak

On the related Reddit thread [0] a commenter links to a very nice blog that evaluates Frege [1] in a very succinct way. To answer your question by quoting this blog post: "Wrapping mutable Java stuff in Frege means that everything will end up in an ST monad, which is almost always IO. That means that using Java’s HashSet will force anything that uses that to be in the IO monad itself. So there goes purity and referential transparency, which are some of the best parts of Haskell in the first place." [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/3gr7y6/infoq_frege_a_haskell… [1] http://taylor.fausak.me/2015/06/25/frege-a-jvm-haskell/ EDIT: formatting

This is a great list! I have to nit pick the touch icon and splash screen sections, though. It's a lot more complicated than that. You need at least 8 <link> tags for touch icons and 7 for splash screens, just to support iOS <= 7. http://taylor.fausak.me/2013/11/01/ios-7-web-apps/

Also this: https://taylor.fausak.me/2022/11/18/haskell-survey-results/#s0q12

> I really wish other languages communities do a similar survey, Python, PHP, Ruby, Java, Rust etc... It will be interesting to see the trend and big picture. 2018 state of Haskell survey results: https://taylor.fausak.me/2018/11/18/2018-state-of-haskell-survey-resul…

Not true. Who said they are commited to that? Elm doesn't even advertise itself as FP. In fact, the Elm style, although still FP, goes against a lot of FP ideals and canonical practices[1]. Instead, I think it would be more correct to say that Elm aims to be its own thing, totally independent from the Javascript and FP community, at the same time welcoming people from both (as it has been doing for quite a long time now). [1]: http://taylor.fausak.me/2015/04/09/write-more-understandable-haskell-w…

Longer names can be seen as unnecessary and duplicating information. One has to balance between being verbose and laconic when it comes to naming in general, but judging by the lack of annotations in this case, not much care was put into it being easily readable. It may be useful to report it, once that's an issue: chances are it just seemed obvious to the author, as it also often happens to code in general, and acceptable to users. If you see an insufficiently documented and/or straightforward API, and there's no good reason to use that one in particular, I think it may also be a good idea to look for alternatives, in any language. > how's package management? I think it's fine, but there are different opinions on how it should be. I prefer a better system integration and shared libraries coming from system repositories (which is usable with Debian), Cabal works fine, Stack seems to be popular, some seem to use Nix. > Did you guys ever resolve cabal vs stack? "Resolve" as in choosing a one true way to build/install things? I don't think so, but there is this annual "state of Haskell" survey that includes build tools, which was closed just a few days ago this year (but no results available yet, afaik), though there are the results from last year [1]. "State of the Haskell ecosystem" [2] may be of interest too. There certainly are imperfections/drawbacks (and/or varying approaches/opinions/preferences), and it may not be a good choice for you for making a dynamic website…