cognitive psychology. PhD 
this is not the best look if the goal is actual discourse :/
-
the fact that languages that celebrate and enable abstraction (e.g. Haskell) are niche and there is massive resistance any time anyone so much as suggests teaching them even to CS majors suggests that they are not the "standard, canonical style" in the broader CS culture
but much of the work on DSLs, programming by example, direct manipulation programming, and live programming incorporates these ideas today
Is the resistance *because* of Haskell's facilities for abstraction though? Cambridge teaches OCaml, Brown/Northeastern teach Racket, CMU teaches SML. I would suspect resistance comes more from lack of perceived applicability in industry.
-
-
To
@amyjko's point, I think the issue is that formalism/FP/abstraction/etc. has never been well justified from either a cognitive (or even software engineering) perspective. The PL community works on, at best, intuition and hunches about what makes programmers effective. -
The root of the tension and this and prior threads was my overgeneralization about computing culture (Turkle & Papert also overgeneralized). There *is* a lot of diversity in what PL principles are valued across CS, and this diversity is good. I retract my hot take of hegemony :)
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Racket is not exactly industry-applicable though. And there are schools that teach Haskell as an introductory language — I believe UBC is one, if I remember right.
-
It might be a pragmatic issue. Of Haskell, Racket, and OCaml, my personal experience has been that Haskell has the worst installation procedure and toolchain by far. Getting it up and running, updating it, finding an editor with good support for it, etc, are all very painful.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.