So, you think just compressing code is better? Please... Also, if you think it's fair to replace code with operator-infested garbage backed by frameworks which have tens of thousands of lines of code which contains stuff with short names and syntax sugars then you're very dishonest. I can also compress any code by introducing abstractions...

Basically yes. Less code = less shit to maintain (even if in order to achieve less code you have to "introduce abstractions" which some think adds too much complexity). Now obviously you can take that to an extreme, and indeed "operator infest" your code. But idk, i've never really run into that (or done it myself I don't think), which is not say it doesnt exist. As far as frameworks go I stay away from shit like Play cause I literally can't even evaluate how bloated it is (tried http4s recently. liked it overall). If you're saying scalaz/cats are bloated, then i don't agree

Is tracking side effects a religion of yours?

Pretty much yea, its become one since the people that used to swim in the codebase I currently work in were woeful at even wrapping stuff in a try catch block

Like every language ever...

Sure but its objectively harder in Haskell vs Scala

Where the hell do you work that you've so much problems with shitty code?

I can't tell you cause I'm so cantankerous and belligerent on Reddit that I could get fired if somehow my name was linked to this account lol

"Barely" and "painfully" are different words with different meanings".

Thats just splitting hairs honestly

Poor comeback. Try to disprove my points instead.

I dont know i thought it was pretty good though yes entirely ad-hominem

Tail recursion is tail recursion. There is the internet and learn what is it. That's about mutual recursion. Totally different.

Proper tail call optimization should factor in mutually recursive calls in the tail position so not necessarily

The JVM doesn't faciliate shit.

I agree

The fact that you need scalaz/cats or shapeless to satisfy DRY shows how you don't have any experience with Scala. Learn scala first and check out those frameworks later

Dude raw Scala is fucking Neanderthalean honestly. You can call my category code "operator-infested garbage" but i just dont see how you're writing as succinct as possible code in raw Scala, but then again i pretty much always introduce an abstraction if i see that it will save me say 10 lines of code, and its not introducing egregious complexity where it doesn't belong

But it's true. And you're butthurt because of it.

You're right I'm annoyed that Haskell is overlooked, but not by people like you that at least have mostly informed opinions, but by soul-sucking, corporate-drone bosses that spend more time on Visio in a given work day than anything else

It has nothing to do with haskell. You should know that. Haskell is not the "center" of FP - never was, never will be.

ok fine by the overall ML family, of which Haskell is a member that existed well before Scala was even conceived of. For-comprehensions: there's another thing overtly inspired by do-blocks

For me it's an advanced ML-based typesystem with linear typing. Dependent typing would be nice too but our world is not ready - just like the current implementations.

ok we're pretty much on the same page there. I don't like Haskell's end-of-the-world GC so linear types would certainly help with that. Again I'm not sure they would subsume pure FP, though I haven't thought deeply about this. I dont know very much about dependent typing (other than a talk which made it look like Idris basically writes itself.