WEBVTT 00:00:04.240 --> 00:00:08.790 >> Hey there Haskell weekly listeners. 00:00:08.850 --> 00:00:12.150 Welcome to another episode of the Haskell weekly podcast. 00:00:12.300 --> 00:00:13.950 I'm your host Taylor Fausak. 00:00:14.010 --> 00:00:17.040 I am the director of software engineering at ACI Learning. 00:00:18.119 --> 00:00:18.299 And 00:00:18.299 --> 00:00:19.390 >> I'm Cameron Gera. 00:00:19.730 --> 00:00:25.799 I am a senior software engineer at caribou, which is a fantastic place to 00:00:25.799 --> 00:00:28.229 be and no longer it pro, but it's okay. 00:00:28.229 --> 00:00:31.470 We're still doing the podcast here and, uh, excited to be here today. 00:00:31.680 --> 00:00:32.310 How's it going today? 00:00:33.210 --> 00:00:34.080 >> It's going good. 00:00:34.110 --> 00:00:37.379 Glad to be back on a new episode with you cam, we took a few weeks 00:00:37.379 --> 00:00:38.400 off there around Thanksgiving. 00:00:39.270 --> 00:00:40.110 Things are going well. 00:00:40.320 --> 00:00:40.470 Yeah. 00:00:40.470 --> 00:00:40.740 It seems 00:00:40.740 --> 00:00:41.220 >> like we do that. 00:00:41.220 --> 00:00:43.040 We get like two weeks pretty good in a row. 00:00:43.040 --> 00:00:45.270 And then all of a sudden it's like two, three weeks. 00:00:45.330 --> 00:00:46.620 We're like, oh yeah, Nope. 00:00:46.620 --> 00:00:47.190 Hasn't happened. 00:00:47.190 --> 00:00:49.740 So, uh, we've got the holidays coming up as well. 00:00:49.740 --> 00:00:53.690 So we'll see how, uh, the rest of this, uh, time goes 00:00:53.760 --> 00:00:54.780 >> for the rest of this year. 00:00:54.780 --> 00:00:58.019 I think in retrospect, calling it high school weekly was a mistake on my part. 00:00:58.019 --> 00:01:00.390 It should have been Haskell semi-weekly. 00:01:00.720 --> 00:01:02.190 Haskell sometimes. 00:01:04.364 --> 00:01:04.754 But yeah. 00:01:04.785 --> 00:01:08.235 Um, so yeah, we'll be probably off a little bit around the holidays, 00:01:08.295 --> 00:01:09.885 so prepare yourself for that. 00:01:09.945 --> 00:01:14.895 Uh, but this week we're going to be reviewing the Haskell survey results. 00:01:14.985 --> 00:01:20.235 Um, I published the survey results just after they, the survey closed, which 00:01:20.235 --> 00:01:22.545 was, uh, in the first half of November. 00:01:22.995 --> 00:01:25.875 But, uh, we haven't got a chance to go over them here on the podcast. 00:01:25.875 --> 00:01:27.045 So I figured we'd do that today? 00:01:27.315 --> 00:01:27.735 Yeah. 00:01:27.755 --> 00:01:28.025 Yeah. 00:01:28.035 --> 00:01:28.425 I think 00:01:28.425 --> 00:01:31.185 >> it's, uh, got some fascinating insights. 00:01:31.275 --> 00:01:31.995 Um, you know, this. 00:01:33.104 --> 00:01:35.714 It was actually lower response than previous. 00:01:36.074 --> 00:01:38.874 Um, and I'm also a guilty party for not actually have done it. 00:01:38.955 --> 00:01:40.604 So, uh, whoops. 00:01:40.815 --> 00:01:46.215 It's, uh, you know, we have little over 1100 responses, um, which is just 00:01:46.365 --> 00:01:47.835 a few hundred down from last year. 00:01:47.835 --> 00:01:53.384 So, uh, you know, a little less, uh, participation, but 00:01:53.384 --> 00:01:55.695 still great fascinations. 00:01:55.824 --> 00:01:57.324 Trying to make some rhymes here. 00:01:59.565 --> 00:02:03.075 >> I'm not too concerned about the dip in participation this year. 00:02:03.105 --> 00:02:05.025 It doesn't portend anything to me. 00:02:05.025 --> 00:02:08.475 I think it just waxes and wanes and we've had it go up a little 00:02:08.475 --> 00:02:09.764 bit and now it's gone back down. 00:02:10.305 --> 00:02:15.735 Um, also before we get into looking at the results, um, the Haskell foundation 00:02:15.735 --> 00:02:18.795 is actually hiring a data scientist to come through these and provide. 00:02:19.620 --> 00:02:23.760 Better, I would say second or third level, you know, analysis of these things. 00:02:23.760 --> 00:02:28.079 So rather than looking at one question in isolation, looking at some types of 00:02:28.079 --> 00:02:32.549 things, like if they answered one question this way, how does that impact their, the 00:02:32.549 --> 00:02:34.109 way they answered these other questions? 00:02:34.680 --> 00:02:38.609 And in particular, that could be really useful, um, by splitting people 00:02:38.609 --> 00:02:42.820 up based on their experience level or, you know, any number of facets. 00:02:43.755 --> 00:02:44.055 >> Dang. 00:02:44.265 --> 00:02:45.015 That's pretty cool. 00:02:45.645 --> 00:02:49.215 And this next year is going to be probably something the Haskell foundation runs 00:02:49.275 --> 00:02:49.725 >> correct? 00:02:50.385 --> 00:02:51.165 I think so. 00:02:51.195 --> 00:02:55.245 That's my goal is to hand off this survey, I've done it for five years 00:02:55.245 --> 00:02:59.745 now and I have got it down to the point where I don't have to spend a lot of 00:02:59.745 --> 00:03:01.425 time doing it, but that means also that. 00:03:02.339 --> 00:03:04.859 Really actively working on continually improving it. 00:03:04.859 --> 00:03:08.010 You know, I'll make little changes and tweaks here and there, but for 00:03:08.010 --> 00:03:11.100 the most part, I just ask the same questions every year and post the same, 00:03:11.220 --> 00:03:13.529 um, results formatted in the same way. 00:03:13.769 --> 00:03:14.070 Right. 00:03:14.549 --> 00:03:14.910 >> Cool. 00:03:15.329 --> 00:03:15.630 Yeah. 00:03:15.660 --> 00:03:19.859 So, uh, I guess with that, we can get started what's uh, what 00:03:19.859 --> 00:03:21.899 was one of the first things that kind of caught you by surprise? 00:03:24.950 --> 00:03:26.430 >> Something that got me by surprise. 00:03:26.480 --> 00:03:31.490 It wasn't necessarily new this year, but that I want to call out and 00:03:31.640 --> 00:03:35.060 just appreciate is there were a good chunk of people who took the survey, 00:03:35.060 --> 00:03:37.070 who don't currently use Haskell. 00:03:37.130 --> 00:03:40.670 And that's both people that used it in the past and don't anymore 00:03:40.970 --> 00:03:42.620 or people that have never used it. 00:03:42.829 --> 00:03:46.964 And I'm really curious how those people that never used it ended up taking the 00:03:46.994 --> 00:03:48.795 survey, but I appreciate their viewpoint. 00:03:49.184 --> 00:03:52.695 And I also appreciate the viewpoint of people who used it in the past and kind 00:03:52.695 --> 00:03:55.994 of either left it for whatever reason or gave up on it or whatever it is. 00:03:57.584 --> 00:03:58.815 Those are really valuable viewpoints. 00:03:58.815 --> 00:04:01.815 So I just want to thank the people that have done that and who, you know, I 00:04:01.815 --> 00:04:04.515 wouldn't expect them to be listeners of the podcast, but maybe they are. 00:04:04.755 --> 00:04:04.905 Yeah. 00:04:04.905 --> 00:04:05.355 Maybe they're 00:04:05.715 --> 00:04:10.635 >> just dreaming to get into Haskell more, you know, providing their feedback, 00:04:10.755 --> 00:04:15.375 whether they don't have any experience or if they have had experience in the 00:04:15.375 --> 00:04:18.015 past and it's, they left for some reason. 00:04:18.284 --> 00:04:21.885 Uh, so yeah, I think that's been pretty interesting. 00:04:22.275 --> 00:04:24.105 Um, you know, I think. 00:04:25.755 --> 00:04:27.044 Looking at the breakdown. 00:04:27.075 --> 00:04:30.914 Obviously there's a lot of variation in, in the demographic 00:04:30.974 --> 00:04:33.614 that we, that are filling this out. 00:04:33.674 --> 00:04:39.945 Um, whether it's experience or it's, um, you know, kind of 00:04:40.094 --> 00:04:45.135 frequency or, or the reason to use Haskell or, you know, what be it. 00:04:45.495 --> 00:04:51.060 Um, but I did also like that, the fact that like, you know, Tying into your 00:04:51.150 --> 00:04:55.110 people who used to use Haskell, or may not even use Haskell and filling this out. 00:04:55.110 --> 00:05:00.210 Like the question about, do you use Haskell at work like 36, 33. 00:05:01.245 --> 00:05:04.215 36% of the people who answered the question were like, no, but I'd like 00:05:04.215 --> 00:05:07.905 to, you know, which is more than the, yes, most of the time, you know? 00:05:08.565 --> 00:05:09.825 Uh, so that was kind of interesting. 00:05:10.155 --> 00:05:11.354 >> Um, yeah, that's huge. 00:05:11.385 --> 00:05:15.375 And I really wish I had an answer for those people of like, how 00:05:15.405 --> 00:05:18.104 can you use Haskell at work? 00:05:18.104 --> 00:05:19.365 You know, is it a problem with Haskell? 00:05:19.365 --> 00:05:21.825 Is it a problem with the company or is it not really a problem at all? 00:05:21.825 --> 00:05:23.205 It's just the way the chips fell. 00:05:24.455 --> 00:05:27.544 That would be an interesting thing to dig into and get some qualitative 00:05:27.544 --> 00:05:30.455 answers from those people rather than the quantitative numbers. 00:05:31.085 --> 00:05:31.474 Yeah. 00:05:31.474 --> 00:05:34.984 >> And I think too, that like, yeah, it's that barrier of 00:05:34.984 --> 00:05:36.995 entry, is it there's that too high? 00:05:37.685 --> 00:05:42.245 Um, you know, is there something like my, my recommendation for those people would 00:05:42.245 --> 00:05:43.945 be like, just see if there's some way. 00:05:45.525 --> 00:05:49.545 Have a spike of a Haskell project and kind of show the power. 00:05:49.935 --> 00:05:53.594 I think that's something here at caribou we've done is that we've kind of showed 00:05:53.594 --> 00:06:00.045 how powerful, you know, Haskell can be for both like speed and, you know, consistency 00:06:00.055 --> 00:06:02.265 and performance and all these things. 00:06:02.265 --> 00:06:06.585 And so we've really created a nice kind of, we advocated well 00:06:06.585 --> 00:06:08.655 for the language in our job. 00:06:09.465 --> 00:06:12.885 But I just kind of starting with little things and seeing the payoff there. 00:06:12.885 --> 00:06:16.815 So you know, that would give you my recommendation to those who would like 00:06:16.815 --> 00:06:21.195 to it, just say like, Hey, you know, you guys have a company hackathon or 00:06:21.615 --> 00:06:24.975 something comes up and you're like, Hey, let me, can I, can I try this with 00:06:24.975 --> 00:06:30.645 Haskell and just see, um, you know, and I feel like there's a lot of resources 00:06:30.645 --> 00:06:33.975 out there too for, you know, higher ups who you're trying to convince. 00:06:33.975 --> 00:06:36.465 You can work with them, kind of say, Hey, okay. 00:06:36.465 --> 00:06:37.005 Hey, here's. 00:06:38.595 --> 00:06:40.545 Here's the parameters for success. 00:06:41.025 --> 00:06:44.865 And, you know, we're going to try to, you know, spend a month on this, you 00:06:44.865 --> 00:06:49.755 know, and hopefully with that month, you have the opportunity to kind of really 00:06:49.755 --> 00:06:55.125 expand your knowledge and the company's knowledge of Haskell and, uh, you know, 00:06:55.155 --> 00:06:56.415 create a great product out of it as well. 00:06:57.495 --> 00:06:57.945 >> I agree. 00:06:57.945 --> 00:07:01.724 I think that's great advice and it's worth reiterating, or maybe not even 00:07:01.724 --> 00:07:06.885 reiterating, just if you weren't aware with ACI Learning, which, um, I came from 00:07:06.885 --> 00:07:14.325 the it pro TV side of ACI Learning and ITProTV, wasn't always a Haskell shop. 00:07:14.414 --> 00:07:16.935 It actually started as a WordPress site. 00:07:16.965 --> 00:07:24.244 So PHP and then had a, not too brief stint as a Node JS shop using Sails JS. 00:07:24.750 --> 00:07:28.680 And very briefly used Golang and then got over to Haskell. 00:07:28.680 --> 00:07:33.660 So I think people may have this impression that in order to use Haskell at a company, 00:07:33.660 --> 00:07:35.700 it has to be founded by somebody who is. 00:07:36.780 --> 00:07:39.870 Gung-ho about using Haskell and that's not the case. 00:07:39.900 --> 00:07:40.770 It wasn't the case for us. 00:07:41.250 --> 00:07:41.549 >> Yeah. 00:07:42.000 --> 00:07:42.299 Yeah. 00:07:42.359 --> 00:07:46.409 I mean, and I'm currently in a place where we're a Ruby and TypeScript 00:07:46.409 --> 00:07:49.320 shop, so it's kind of like, you know, pushing our way through. 00:07:49.739 --> 00:07:52.859 Um, and you know, we have a lot of people in the organization who are interested in 00:07:52.859 --> 00:07:57.150 what we're doing on our team, um, since that's where our Haskell is currently, 00:07:57.150 --> 00:08:01.380 but we're gonna continue to do book clubs and things like that to spread Haskell 00:08:01.380 --> 00:08:02.549 through the rest of the organization. 00:08:02.940 --> 00:08:03.810 And we're hoping that. 00:08:04.510 --> 00:08:06.820 We're kind of going to a microservice architecture as it is. 00:08:06.820 --> 00:08:11.300 Cause they kinda got their wires crossed and uh, you know, when 00:08:11.300 --> 00:08:13.570 you're in a startup, you're trying to get a product out there. 00:08:13.570 --> 00:08:17.170 So there's choices made that kind of created a lot of coupling and, and things. 00:08:17.170 --> 00:08:20.350 So I know we're trying to spend some time to clean that up and then 00:08:20.710 --> 00:08:24.040 ideally pull some of that, you know, those things out into maybe services. 00:08:24.040 --> 00:08:25.990 And, you know, there, there's an opportunity there to 00:08:25.990 --> 00:08:27.430 also use Haskell, you know? 00:08:28.270 --> 00:08:28.600 >> So, yeah. 00:08:28.840 --> 00:08:31.030 That's one of the benefits of microservices is that you. 00:08:32.069 --> 00:08:35.669 A small piece of your infrastructure written in a different language and, 00:08:35.669 --> 00:08:37.230 uh, just try it out, see how it works. 00:08:38.459 --> 00:08:38.730 Yep. 00:08:39.539 --> 00:08:43.409 So moving on a little bit, uh, one of the other questions that's interesting to me, 00:08:43.409 --> 00:08:44.939 I don't know if I'd call it surprising. 00:08:45.000 --> 00:08:48.750 Is the, how many years have you been using Haskell? 00:08:49.110 --> 00:08:53.160 And I, I guess I was surprised to see that a lot of people that 00:08:53.160 --> 00:08:56.270 answered this survey had been using Haskell for less than two years. 00:08:56.640 --> 00:09:01.199 Which means there's a big group of people that are really new to Haskell. 00:09:01.350 --> 00:09:06.689 And for me as someone who's been using it for several years, like on, in the 00:09:06.689 --> 00:09:12.089 five to 10 range at this point, it's easy to forget what it felt like to be, you 00:09:12.089 --> 00:09:14.069 know, in year one of learning Haskell. 00:09:14.160 --> 00:09:19.920 And I think so much of the, um, material in the community blogposts and stuff like. 00:09:20.760 --> 00:09:23.790 Caters to those experts, the people who've been using it forever and 00:09:23.790 --> 00:09:25.470 really want to push it to its limits. 00:09:25.950 --> 00:09:30.210 But it's important to remember a big chunk of the community is new 00:09:30.210 --> 00:09:34.200 and just needs help with the basics and, you know, comparative analysis. 00:09:34.260 --> 00:09:38.700 How, how do you do something and how do you choose which way to do something? 00:09:38.700 --> 00:09:39.960 How do you choose a library? 00:09:40.230 --> 00:09:41.550 All those things are challenging. 00:09:41.640 --> 00:09:44.790 And there, there isn't a lot of material written for that. 00:09:45.240 --> 00:09:45.660 >> Yeah. 00:09:45.720 --> 00:09:45.960 Yeah. 00:09:45.960 --> 00:09:48.810 And I think, I mean, I would have those same questions and, um, 00:09:49.935 --> 00:09:51.105 Almost at the three-year mark. 00:09:51.135 --> 00:09:57.915 So it's kind of that like finding the resources that give the beginner a chance. 00:09:58.064 --> 00:10:02.145 Um, and that's kind of, you know, I think if you're going into an organization that 00:10:02.145 --> 00:10:07.215 has high school, a lot of, I mean, I think it depends on what they're doing, but 00:10:07.515 --> 00:10:14.205 you can kind of find a niche of simple Haskell and kind of keep to that so that 00:10:14.415 --> 00:10:17.955 as you're bringing on new hires and you're bringing in interns or whoever they may. 00:10:18.810 --> 00:10:21.300 They have a little easier handhold into Haskell. 00:10:21.300 --> 00:10:27.510 Cause it's not, you know, crazy bind syntax that you're trying to figure out, 00:10:27.510 --> 00:10:33.060 okay, this applicatives to this and what, and I left bind and arrow star ship. 00:10:33.150 --> 00:10:33.959 Oh my goodness. 00:10:34.199 --> 00:10:36.109 You know, there, there's a lot of, you know, operators in 00:10:36.109 --> 00:10:37.410 Haskell that can create confusion. 00:10:37.740 --> 00:10:40.709 And there's also, I mean, I've, I feel like that's in any language you 00:10:40.709 --> 00:10:42.120 can write things to be confusing. 00:10:42.150 --> 00:10:46.079 So um choosing to kind of fight for simple Haskell is going to help 00:10:46.079 --> 00:10:50.760 those beginners you know really feel confident in the language and, and 00:10:50.760 --> 00:10:54.270 probably take that next step of, okay, now I understand the basics. 00:10:54.390 --> 00:10:57.570 What do I need to do to get to the next level? 00:10:57.690 --> 00:10:59.340 I've got to be a 10 X developer. 00:10:59.760 --> 00:11:00.000 Yo. 00:11:01.710 --> 00:11:03.420 >> Yeah, that's absolutely true. 00:11:03.420 --> 00:11:09.450 And I think even simple Haskell is already a much more powerful and expressive 00:11:09.450 --> 00:11:11.100 language than many other programming. 00:11:11.100 --> 00:11:11.220 Like. 00:11:12.015 --> 00:11:16.275 That you would do well, just sticking to that and yeah, there's going to be 00:11:16.495 --> 00:11:21.194 edge cases here and there that you can't that feel like they should be able to 00:11:21.194 --> 00:11:26.834 be prevented, uh, like from the type level to turn them into compiler errors, 00:11:26.865 --> 00:11:30.495 but the price you'd have to pay to turn them into compile errors is pretty high. 00:11:30.495 --> 00:11:35.235 So just deal with the runtime error or potential runtime error and 00:11:35.235 --> 00:11:36.675 keep the code simple for awhile. 00:11:36.704 --> 00:11:39.824 And then eventually you and your team will have enough experience to be 00:11:39.824 --> 00:11:44.760 able to say, are we comfortable um, increasing the complexity in order 00:11:44.760 --> 00:11:47.750 to also increase the safety or the guarantees we get from the code. 00:11:48.010 --> 00:11:48.310 Right. 00:11:49.090 --> 00:11:51.810 >> Take advantage of some of those deeper things. 00:11:53.130 --> 00:11:53.490 Yeah. 00:11:54.990 --> 00:11:55.260 >> Cool. 00:11:55.620 --> 00:11:58.500 So, which is the next question that stood out to you Cam? 00:11:59.160 --> 00:12:03.780 >> Um, yeah, well, I was just looking through and kind of perusing here, 00:12:03.780 --> 00:12:05.910 but, uh, it's interesting to me that. 00:12:07.125 --> 00:12:12.915 62% of the participants answered that they develop command 00:12:12.915 --> 00:12:14.655 line programs with Haskell. 00:12:15.285 --> 00:12:16.665 Uh, that was kind of interesting to me. 00:12:17.205 --> 00:12:19.905 I mean, I definitely can see why it would be that way. 00:12:20.145 --> 00:12:24.735 I was just expecting API services to kind of run the roost there, but 00:12:25.395 --> 00:12:29.265 you know, everybody's got, you know, different ways of, of using it. 00:12:29.295 --> 00:12:31.035 So I thought that was pretty interesting. 00:12:31.515 --> 00:12:36.245 Um, have you, like, I know you've done some stuff with kind of CLI. 00:12:36.825 --> 00:12:41.055 And Haskell, um, with your rocket league parser, right? 00:12:41.925 --> 00:12:42.285 >> Yeah. 00:12:42.435 --> 00:12:45.255 Uh, and I'm in the same boat as you. 00:12:45.645 --> 00:12:50.385 My, you know, I programmed API services for most of my professional career. 00:12:50.415 --> 00:12:53.295 And so that's my bias and that's what I expected to see 00:12:53.295 --> 00:12:54.495 at the top of the list here. 00:12:55.065 --> 00:13:00.015 But, um, I think command line programs are probably the least common denominator. 00:13:00.045 --> 00:13:03.225 Like even though I typically write API services, I also 00:13:03.225 --> 00:13:04.625 write command line programs and. 00:13:05.385 --> 00:13:08.655 Right libraries, you you'll also probably write some command line programs. 00:13:08.655 --> 00:13:11.985 So it's like everything else involves some manner of that. 00:13:11.985 --> 00:13:13.344 So that's probably why it's up at the top. 00:13:13.965 --> 00:13:16.905 Um, but as to like my experience writing command line programs with 00:13:16.905 --> 00:13:20.385 Haskell, I found it to be a very nice programming language for it. 00:13:20.775 --> 00:13:25.485 And it, you know, works well and gets out of your way. 00:13:25.875 --> 00:13:27.555 Um, I'm not sure. 00:13:28.425 --> 00:13:29.895 What else to say about it? 00:13:29.895 --> 00:13:33.915 Like there, there are good libraries for parsing command line arguments, 00:13:34.305 --> 00:13:38.595 um, optparse-applicative, or optparse-generic are both pretty good. 00:13:39.015 --> 00:13:42.465 Uh, and there's actually a module built into the base library. 00:13:42.645 --> 00:13:47.685 That's just a reimplementation of getopt, which is a common C or C++ 00:13:48.125 --> 00:13:49.935 way to parse command line flags. 00:13:50.385 --> 00:13:56.790 And it's not very like, uh, Advanced or nice to use, but it gets the job done. 00:13:56.790 --> 00:14:00.999 So if you're trying to avoid dependencies for whatever reason, there is something 00:14:01.020 --> 00:14:02.310 in base that can let you do that. 00:14:02.790 --> 00:14:03.000 >> Hmm. 00:14:03.930 --> 00:14:04.439 Nice. 00:14:05.849 --> 00:14:08.520 Um, yeah. 00:14:08.520 --> 00:14:10.970 W what was the next question that kind of stood out to you? 00:14:12.375 --> 00:14:13.365 >> Yeah, I'm still looking around. 00:14:13.395 --> 00:14:18.015 Um, there's a couple that are not surprising, but I want to highlight, 00:14:18.015 --> 00:14:23.775 which are that most people develop on Linux and most people deploy to Linux. 00:14:24.135 --> 00:14:26.865 So that's been true every year. 00:14:26.865 --> 00:14:30.375 I've done this and I suspect it will continue to be true for a long time. 00:14:30.735 --> 00:14:35.175 But, um, one thing I've said before about this, that was probably a little 00:14:35.175 --> 00:14:40.275 controversial is that if you're trying to build some tooling for Haskell. 00:14:41.370 --> 00:14:46.079 And you feel like you may not be able to make headway or support all 00:14:46.079 --> 00:14:49.860 three major operating systems, Linux, Mac, and windows at the same time. 00:14:50.310 --> 00:14:51.839 Just build it for Linux at first. 00:14:51.900 --> 00:14:55.770 And then if it catches on and the community seems to like it. 00:14:56.040 --> 00:15:00.120 Yeah, go ahead and also make it work on Mac and windows, but don't feel obligated 00:15:00.120 --> 00:15:04.469 to do that out of the gate because you're going to hit almost, I don't know, 80%. 00:15:04.469 --> 00:15:08.040 So four out of five Haskell developers you'll hit with just getting Linux. 00:15:09.960 --> 00:15:12.450 >> Yeah, I think that's definitely something that's pretty cool. 00:15:13.140 --> 00:15:18.660 Uh, yeah, the next one I wanted to dive into, if you're okay with jumping 00:15:18.660 --> 00:15:23.490 into it is the language extensions, which one people would like enabled 00:15:23.490 --> 00:15:30.090 by default and lo and behold, our, uh, our Lambda cases up at the top. 00:15:31.605 --> 00:15:33.165 Which is interesting to me. 00:15:34.215 --> 00:15:35.775 >> I mean, I guess why is that interesting? 00:15:36.105 --> 00:15:36.675 It's just because it's 00:15:36.675 --> 00:15:40.725 >> something I've never really used or try to use, uh, because it's, 00:15:41.535 --> 00:15:44.805 I don't know, seems like it can create a little more confusion and chaos than 00:15:44.805 --> 00:15:49.725 it's worth, but, uh, you know, I know there's obviously use cases for it. 00:15:49.725 --> 00:15:54.255 It's just interesting that that was like the one that most people wanted. 00:15:56.354 --> 00:15:58.755 Instead of, you know, enabled instead of disabled. 00:15:59.564 --> 00:16:03.675 >> Um, yeah, I have an opinion about Lambda case, but before I launch 00:16:03.675 --> 00:16:07.485 into it, um, a quick note, if you're listening to this and you go look at 00:16:07.485 --> 00:16:11.055 the results on the website, because there will be a link in the show notes. 00:16:11.505 --> 00:16:14.594 Um, I want to explain briefly the visualization here, because 00:16:14.594 --> 00:16:15.615 I had a question about it. 00:16:16.890 --> 00:16:21.240 Uh, with all of the other questions, it was just like a bar chart for who, 00:16:21.300 --> 00:16:25.530 how many responses did I get for each answer choice in this one, there are 00:16:25.530 --> 00:16:31.350 kind of two bar charts at once, because for each question or for each language 00:16:31.350 --> 00:16:36.330 extension, people were able to select, yes, I want this enabled by default or no. 00:16:36.795 --> 00:16:40.785 I don't want to, I don't want this enabled by default, or I would resist 00:16:40.814 --> 00:16:43.395 a proposal to enable this by default. 00:16:44.235 --> 00:16:48.405 Um, and that lets us say, okay, like Lambda case. 00:16:48.464 --> 00:16:53.625 Um, we had a lot of votes in favor of enabling it by default and almost no 00:16:53.625 --> 00:16:55.875 votes opposed to enabling it by default. 00:16:55.875 --> 00:16:59.895 So that means it's widely, uh, a lot of people like it and 00:16:59.895 --> 00:17:01.354 not too many people dislike it. 00:17:01.990 --> 00:17:04.670 So if you go look at these results online, that's what the two bars mean. 00:17:04.700 --> 00:17:06.190 The blue one means yes. 00:17:06.250 --> 00:17:07.450 And the orange one means no. 00:17:08.290 --> 00:17:08.560 Gotcha. 00:17:08.589 --> 00:17:14.800 So with that caveat out of the way Lambda case, um, I feel like I see 00:17:14.800 --> 00:17:16.599 why so many people voted for this. 00:17:16.599 --> 00:17:21.129 It's just a pure syntactic sugar thing that lets you write expressions that. 00:17:21.899 --> 00:17:25.770 More or less on ambiguous and avoid naming variables. 00:17:26.159 --> 00:17:30.600 Um, but I personally dislike it cause I feel like it complicates the 00:17:30.600 --> 00:17:32.850 grammar for such a small benefit. 00:17:33.210 --> 00:17:40.790 Like to me, the downside of writing backslash X arrow case X of, I 00:17:40.800 --> 00:17:45.929 have no desire to replace that with backslash case, like, okay, I 00:17:45.929 --> 00:17:48.570 saved a couple of keystrokes, but it doesn't really change anything. 00:17:50.010 --> 00:17:50.159 >> Yeah. 00:17:51.555 --> 00:17:58.485 Yeah, and yeah, I haven't had, I haven't used it in anchor, so I 00:17:58.485 --> 00:18:01.245 wouldn't know if I would like it or not. 00:18:01.725 --> 00:18:08.865 Um, I think my opinion on that has been probably based on your opinion of that as 00:18:08.865 --> 00:18:12.835 well, just cause it's, you know, I was, you know, we worked together for so long. 00:18:12.885 --> 00:18:16.845 It was kind of like, Hey, I know a Lambda case isn't really worth it kind of thing. 00:18:16.845 --> 00:18:19.125 So that's probably where my opinion comes in. 00:18:20.385 --> 00:18:23.745 But I'm also the advocate for simple Haskell. 00:18:23.745 --> 00:18:29.025 So like, I feel like for the benefits, it just doesn't like. 00:18:31.064 --> 00:18:31.514 It's not worth 00:18:31.514 --> 00:18:32.534 >> it in my opinion. 00:18:32.595 --> 00:18:32.925 Right? 00:18:33.195 --> 00:18:34.665 Because you have to teach people. 00:18:34.665 --> 00:18:38.685 Okay, well, there's this whole separate syntax now for when you have 00:18:38.685 --> 00:18:41.895 a Lambda that has one argument and you're just casing on that argument. 00:18:41.895 --> 00:18:44.264 You can get rid of all this stuff around it. 00:18:44.834 --> 00:18:48.554 And I feel like it's simpler to just say, if you don't care what the name 00:18:48.554 --> 00:18:51.675 of this argument is, just put an X in there and move on with your life. 00:18:53.084 --> 00:18:58.875 Um, and I feel like this kind of goes with the Haskell community's overall. 00:18:59.639 --> 00:19:01.740 Dislike of naming arguments. 00:19:01.740 --> 00:19:05.610 So there's a lot of, you know, writing stuff in point free syntax, lets you 00:19:05.610 --> 00:19:09.810 avoid naming arguments, um, currying or partially applying functions 00:19:09.810 --> 00:19:11.550 lets you avoid naming arguments. 00:19:11.909 --> 00:19:14.399 And I think those are all all right. 00:19:14.429 --> 00:19:16.409 But I try not to take them to the. 00:19:17.250 --> 00:19:19.200 >> Yeah, simplify everything. 00:19:19.200 --> 00:19:21.090 Point free, nothing is variables. 00:19:21.120 --> 00:19:23.970 It's all you have one input to the system and then everything 00:19:23.970 --> 00:19:25.830 else is just point free. 00:19:27.630 --> 00:19:31.650 >> Um, so one of the extensions that stood out to me was a little further 00:19:31.650 --> 00:19:37.260 down the list, which is applicative do, it's a relatively new extension where if 00:19:37.260 --> 00:19:40.450 you write a expression in, do notation. 00:19:40.950 --> 00:19:44.430 But you don't actually use any features that would require a Mon ad. 00:19:44.670 --> 00:19:49.140 It will infer an applicative constraint to that thing and rewrite it using the 00:19:49.140 --> 00:19:51.570 applicative operators, which are pure. 00:19:51.630 --> 00:19:54.780 And, um, people call it all kinds of different things, spaceship 00:19:54.870 --> 00:19:59.550 or a tie fighter, or a less than asterisk greater than anyway. 00:19:59.730 --> 00:20:01.560 Um, that's what applicative do. 00:20:02.580 --> 00:20:05.639 And I wanted to highlight it because it's one of the few language extensions 00:20:05.639 --> 00:20:07.710 that was really, really contentious. 00:20:07.710 --> 00:20:10.800 There were a lot of votes to enable it by default, but also a lot of 00:20:10.800 --> 00:20:12.810 votes not to enable it by default. 00:20:12.840 --> 00:20:14.610 And I don't really know why that is. 00:20:14.790 --> 00:20:15.350 Do you Cam? 00:20:17.250 --> 00:20:18.149 >> I don't. 00:20:18.180 --> 00:20:24.930 Um, unless people are, are more focused on, I mean, I honestly have no idea. 00:20:25.290 --> 00:20:34.020 Uh, so can, can you kinda talk about like, Yeah, I guess for me, 00:20:34.020 --> 00:20:38.250 I'm, haven't really, I didn't even know this was really a language 00:20:38.250 --> 00:20:41.040 extension, so you know how cool I am. 00:20:41.490 --> 00:20:46.379 Um, but you know, what, what would be like a big downside to this? 00:20:47.909 --> 00:20:51.750 >> I'm not well-versed in the downsides of applicative do I think 00:20:52.469 --> 00:20:56.969 probably, and this is true with many language extensions, probably, 00:20:57.060 --> 00:20:59.865 uh, Error messages get worse. 00:20:59.895 --> 00:21:02.745 If you have this turned on and you do something wrong because 00:21:02.745 --> 00:21:05.774 the implied constraint will be different than what you might expect. 00:21:06.524 --> 00:21:11.294 Um, also I think I have a memory, so this could be wrong, but I have a memory 00:21:11.294 --> 00:21:15.764 of when this was first rolled out, that it was buggy in certain circumstances. 00:21:15.794 --> 00:21:20.054 So like it, wasn't generally safe to enable, applicative do 00:21:20.205 --> 00:21:21.435 for an entire project because. 00:21:22.605 --> 00:21:23.715 Suddenly behave differently. 00:21:24.435 --> 00:21:31.004 Um, and maybe that's why, or even, uh, if your oper— or if your constraint 00:21:31.095 --> 00:21:34.725 is something that's a monad, but it relaxes it down to an applicative. 00:21:34.725 --> 00:21:39.584 That means things may happen in parallel when it looks like they should happen in 00:21:39.584 --> 00:21:42.615 sequence, because if your monad doesn't. 00:21:44.550 --> 00:21:48.389 Use the result of a previous binding, then applicative do will 00:21:48.389 --> 00:21:50.220 infer that those things can be done. 00:21:50.399 --> 00:21:53.370 You know, they don't really depend on each other, so they could be done at the same 00:21:53.370 --> 00:21:55.139 time or one before the other, whatever. 00:21:55.620 --> 00:22:00.629 And that may break programs that do depend on that, um, specific ordering of. 00:22:01.740 --> 00:22:02.190 Gotcha. 00:22:03.360 --> 00:22:03.840 >> Cool. 00:22:03.900 --> 00:22:08.730 Yeah, no, I think, I feel like that's some valid concerns for, for people. 00:22:08.760 --> 00:22:14.190 I mean, so it makes sense that it would be such a tight race. 00:22:14.400 --> 00:22:17.490 Uh, and you know, I know. 00:22:18.824 --> 00:22:23.804 I mean, we we've talked about, uh, GHC 2021, many times on this podcast. 00:22:24.314 --> 00:22:28.395 Um, which is just this, for those who haven't, who don't know, it's a default 00:22:28.395 --> 00:22:33.165 set of language extensions that are going to ship with the language, uh, kind 00:22:33.165 --> 00:22:36.855 of like Haskell 2010 and Haskell 96 or 00:22:37.455 --> 00:22:38.804 >> 98 90 is the first one. 00:22:38.804 --> 00:22:39.014 Yeah. 00:22:39.435 --> 00:22:39.915 So 00:22:40.004 --> 00:22:43.605 >> you know that that's like a preset and you know, on here, we 00:22:43.605 --> 00:22:49.425 didn't like mark that, whether it's part of it or not, uh, But yeah, I 00:22:49.425 --> 00:22:53.190 think it was kind of interesting that like, Maybe the, maybe the committee 00:22:53.190 --> 00:22:56.970 who kind of decided what Haskell 20, 21, has they take a look at this? 00:22:56.970 --> 00:23:00.480 And if it has any like, correlation, like, okay. 00:23:00.480 --> 00:23:03.570 Yeah, we see a majority of people want tuple sections. 00:23:03.810 --> 00:23:04.140 All right. 00:23:04.140 --> 00:23:06.720 Well then we're going to maybe we'll consider that or 00:23:07.020 --> 00:23:07.800 maybe it's already in there. 00:23:07.830 --> 00:23:08.190 So, 00:23:08.550 --> 00:23:09.180 >> um, yeah. 00:23:09.630 --> 00:23:13.320 And in fact, they did look at it last year as they were compiling 00:23:13.350 --> 00:23:15.870 the extension set for GHC 2021. 00:23:16.170 --> 00:23:18.900 This wasn't the only thing in the mix, but this was one data point 00:23:19.350 --> 00:23:20.910 a and they also took a look at. 00:23:22.080 --> 00:23:26.580 Packages on hackage to see which language extensions they enabled by 00:23:26.580 --> 00:23:30.840 default and which ones were enabled within modules, uh, explicitly. 00:23:30.899 --> 00:23:35.189 So, um, yeah, your, the people who responded to this survey, 00:23:35.189 --> 00:23:38.649 your voice was heard and it got incorporated into GHC 2021. 00:23:38.669 --> 00:23:41.280 And hopefully this will get incorporated into future 00:23:41.280 --> 00:23:43.770 versions of the Haskell language. 00:23:43.800 --> 00:23:47.550 It's not a standard now because that's not what GHC 2021 is, but like extension 00:23:47.550 --> 00:23:48.719 set, I don't know what to call it. 00:23:50.355 --> 00:23:50.625 >> Yeah. 00:23:50.635 --> 00:23:55.105 Like, uh, just kind of like a pre-packaged situation. 00:23:56.185 --> 00:24:01.014 So it's like, it's like you ordered it on Amazon and now it's at your front door in 00:24:01.014 --> 00:24:01.495 >> two days. 00:24:01.975 --> 00:24:02.334 Yeah. 00:24:02.665 --> 00:24:04.524 Well, I'm sure we could talk about language extensions all 00:24:04.524 --> 00:24:06.925 day, but do you want to move on to another, another question? 00:24:07.524 --> 00:24:08.245 Um, 00:24:08.304 --> 00:24:13.195 >> you know, I think one that probably gets a lot of conversation 00:24:13.195 --> 00:24:16.465 in the Haskell community as probably, I mean, I think there's a, quite 00:24:16.465 --> 00:24:17.695 a few, but I think one that is. 00:24:18.660 --> 00:24:19.230 Pretty common. 00:24:19.230 --> 00:24:20.150 It's probably tooling. 00:24:20.790 --> 00:24:22.440 It's like the question around tooling. 00:24:22.440 --> 00:24:29.340 And, um, I think in 2021, we had a huge kind of swing towards 00:24:29.340 --> 00:24:30.960 like some better tooling. 00:24:31.080 --> 00:24:34.620 Um, and that being in HLS, Haskell language server, I 00:24:34.620 --> 00:24:38.610 think that has really taken off. 00:24:38.610 --> 00:24:43.230 I think, you know, early in the year in 2020 as well, it was. 00:24:44.310 --> 00:24:46.320 To buggy, there's some issues with it. 00:24:46.380 --> 00:24:51.540 And so, you know, I think in 2021, it's really solidified as for me, my go-to 00:24:51.600 --> 00:24:59.880 IDE, um, you know, and I'll use GHG ID or I'll use just stack, um, sometimes, 00:24:59.880 --> 00:25:04.380 but really if I'm trying to iterate quickly, HLS is, you know, where I'm at. 00:25:04.800 --> 00:25:05.370 That's my bread and 00:25:05.370 --> 00:25:05.640 >> butter. 00:25:06.510 --> 00:25:06.750 Yeah. 00:25:06.750 --> 00:25:07.320 I agree. 00:25:07.410 --> 00:25:13.110 It is both an amazing project and it has improved so much even just in the past. 00:25:14.235 --> 00:25:18.465 I feel like it's gained so many features and it's gotten much faster. 00:25:18.885 --> 00:25:22.095 So if you've looked at it before and had trouble with it, take another look. 00:25:22.095 --> 00:25:25.995 But most people have looked at it almost 65% of people 00:25:25.995 --> 00:25:26.955 that responded to the survey. 00:25:27.735 --> 00:25:29.355 Use HLS and that's huge. 00:25:29.445 --> 00:25:29.834 >> Yeah. 00:25:30.165 --> 00:25:34.334 And I think too, it's funny that like, uh, you know, Adam, you know, 00:25:34.334 --> 00:25:36.675 I don't know what four, four years ago, five years ago, it was like 00:25:36.675 --> 00:25:38.715 one of the top editors in general. 00:25:38.715 --> 00:25:41.385 And now, you know, it's just 2% of people. 00:25:42.105 --> 00:25:42.345 >> Yeah. 00:25:42.554 --> 00:25:45.345 And I think all those people switched over to vs code, which is now the most 00:25:45.345 --> 00:25:48.615 popular one, beaten out both VI and Emacs. 00:25:48.675 --> 00:25:49.695 So yeah. 00:25:50.970 --> 00:25:53.730 >> Better not tell Jason or Cody. 00:25:55.260 --> 00:25:58.920 >> And, uh, another big upset this year was the cabal overtook 00:25:58.920 --> 00:26:01.320 stack as the most popular build tool. 00:26:01.620 --> 00:26:05.550 And I think there were two big reasons for this one is that. 00:26:06.629 --> 00:26:07.950 Improved quite a bit. 00:26:08.129 --> 00:26:12.070 And with the newer versions of the cabal spec and cabal library and cabal 00:26:12.150 --> 00:26:16.770 install, command line tool, they've gotten a lot of nice new features. 00:26:17.220 --> 00:26:23.990 Um, but also I think the ghcup project helped with this because if you use ghcup, 00:26:24.120 --> 00:26:28.230 that can manage your GHC installation and then also install cabal for you. 00:26:28.230 --> 00:26:29.250 And then you're ready to go. 00:26:29.860 --> 00:26:32.950 Um, and for me that was one of the big upsides of stack. 00:26:32.950 --> 00:26:36.370 Was it managed GHC for me and just drop me in an environment 00:26:36.370 --> 00:26:37.510 that was ready to build stuff. 00:26:37.930 --> 00:26:44.230 And now I usually reach for ghcup and cabal rather than stack. 00:26:44.260 --> 00:26:46.540 So that's been a big change for me at work. 00:26:46.540 --> 00:26:47.290 We still use stack. 00:26:47.290 --> 00:26:50.860 So I'm still very comfortably switching between them, but for personal projects, 00:26:50.860 --> 00:26:52.330 I've tried it out and I liked it. 00:26:52.330 --> 00:26:53.230 So I'm sticking with it. 00:26:54.210 --> 00:26:54.660 Nice. 00:26:54.870 --> 00:26:58.890 >> Yeah, I have not looked into ghcup so I'll have to check it out. 00:26:59.070 --> 00:27:02.670 We use stack uh, with templates. 00:27:02.700 --> 00:27:05.070 So we have a stack template that we generally build all 00:27:05.070 --> 00:27:06.720 of our Haskell projects with. 00:27:07.170 --> 00:27:07.710 Um, cool. 00:27:08.010 --> 00:27:11.340 So that's been pretty nice, especially for microservice architecture. 00:27:11.340 --> 00:27:15.000 which kind of gets the skeleton up and then we can, uh, hear it from there. 00:27:15.810 --> 00:27:16.170 >> Yeah. 00:27:16.500 --> 00:27:20.160 One of the most popular things I've ever worked on in the Haskell community is. 00:27:21.195 --> 00:27:24.805 Stack template for setting up a new project that I called Haskeleton. 00:27:25.365 --> 00:27:27.585 Um, I'm not sure if it's still a stack template. 00:27:27.585 --> 00:27:29.925 I haven't worked on it in awhile, but yeah. 00:27:29.955 --> 00:27:30.075 Um, 00:27:31.065 --> 00:27:36.215 >> Haskeleton were, were they're very, uh, I feel like the Haskell 00:27:36.215 --> 00:27:38.115 community is very good at naming. 00:27:40.125 --> 00:27:40.575 >> Yes. 00:27:40.575 --> 00:27:41.385 hasql 00:27:41.695 --> 00:27:43.525 >> hasql Hakyll? 00:27:43.845 --> 00:27:44.895 Well, the blog 00:27:45.545 --> 00:27:47.245 >> HASQL HASQL. 00:27:47.265 --> 00:27:47.505 Yeah. 00:27:47.565 --> 00:27:48.855 I never know how to pronounce that one. 00:27:50.625 --> 00:27:52.875 It's a great name, but I don't know how to say it out loud. 00:27:53.025 --> 00:27:53.235 Yeah. 00:27:53.895 --> 00:27:54.495 >> It's always fun. 00:27:54.525 --> 00:27:56.025 It's like, it makes it really easy to talk about. 00:27:58.305 --> 00:28:01.755 >> Um, so related to tooling, another one of the things that really 00:28:01.755 --> 00:28:07.275 surprised me this year and every year is I ask which tools do you 00:28:07.275 --> 00:28:09.855 use to deploy Haskell applications? 00:28:10.545 --> 00:28:14.805 And many, many people say that they deploy static binary. 00:28:15.585 --> 00:28:16.335 But I'm not sure. 00:28:16.335 --> 00:28:16.995 I believe them. 00:28:16.995 --> 00:28:20.835 It's really hard to build a fully static binary for Haskell. 00:28:21.285 --> 00:28:24.675 And I think people are deploying mostly static binaries. 00:28:24.705 --> 00:28:27.765 So I don't know if that's a distinction worth making, but that surprised me. 00:28:28.095 --> 00:28:28.365 Yeah. 00:28:28.635 --> 00:28:28.935 >> Yeah. 00:28:28.935 --> 00:28:33.225 I mean, from my, my experience it's been Docker images all the way. 00:28:34.065 --> 00:28:34.515 >> Yeah. 00:28:34.785 --> 00:28:36.225 And those are very popular as well. 00:28:36.465 --> 00:28:39.755 But, um, I'm curious, like when people say static, binaries are. 00:28:40.500 --> 00:28:46.840 Building inside of Alpine and statically linking glibc or not glibc, but musl libc. 00:28:47.280 --> 00:28:52.200 Um, or are they statically linking everything except libc um, I'd be 00:28:52.200 --> 00:28:53.670 really curious to dig into that one. 00:28:54.420 --> 00:28:54.720 >> Yeah. 00:28:55.410 --> 00:28:58.379 So if anybody answered that and has uh an example you want to be 00:28:58.379 --> 00:29:00.120 on the podcast, please reach out. 00:29:00.210 --> 00:29:01.200 >> We'd love to have. 00:29:02.145 --> 00:29:04.304 You know, maybe they really are doing static binaries cause a good 00:29:04.304 --> 00:29:08.085 chunk of people use Nix and so nix can produce a static binary. 00:29:08.294 --> 00:29:09.425 So maybe that's how they're doing it. 00:29:09.745 --> 00:29:09.945 Yeah. 00:29:10.624 --> 00:29:13.814 >> Still, could be a fun episode to dive into. 00:29:15.585 --> 00:29:16.215 Um, cool. 00:29:16.245 --> 00:29:18.825 Well, that was kind of a touch on infrastructure as well. 00:29:19.185 --> 00:29:24.365 Um, is there, I mean, we've got kind of community as a section 00:29:24.365 --> 00:29:31.855 here in the, in the, um, results on the survey and, uh, you know. 00:29:31.875 --> 00:29:36.585 I think one that's always interesting every year is the, which of the following 00:29:36.585 --> 00:29:38.595 topics would you like to see written more? 00:29:40.004 --> 00:29:41.895 Cause it's always like, okay. 00:29:41.925 --> 00:29:44.355 Like what could it be? 00:29:44.355 --> 00:29:47.805 Cause that's, you know, luckily it's a multi-select cause everybody has opinions 00:29:47.805 --> 00:29:49.365 on what they want to see more of. 00:29:49.905 --> 00:29:55.274 Um, what I'm surprised about those is really low that people are like, 00:29:55.335 --> 00:29:56.565 eh, it would be game development. 00:29:56.565 --> 00:29:58.395 I feel like it could be kind of fun to figure out if that's. 00:29:59.325 --> 00:30:02.205 A viable possibility using game, having game development. 00:30:03.135 --> 00:30:03.524 >> Yeah. 00:30:04.004 --> 00:30:07.905 I mean, I think it would be fun, but also what's the, you know, the 00:30:08.055 --> 00:30:11.115 Venn diagram of people that are Haskell Haskell developers and game 00:30:11.115 --> 00:30:12.975 developers is probably pretty small. 00:30:13.605 --> 00:30:17.175 And that's actually one of the things I like about this question is that I 00:30:17.175 --> 00:30:21.495 think it gets to the heart of often people will write about things that 00:30:21.705 --> 00:30:24.675 are interesting to them, which is good. 00:30:24.764 --> 00:30:27.615 Cause it's easy to be jazzed up about that and write something good about it. 00:30:28.470 --> 00:30:33.780 Um, I think it'd be better to direct or, or maybe even pay for 00:30:34.379 --> 00:30:37.530 articles that focus on these things that people in the community want. 00:30:37.540 --> 00:30:39.480 So like best practices is far and away. 00:30:39.480 --> 00:30:42.870 The most popular thing that people wish there were things written about. 00:30:43.379 --> 00:30:46.710 So why, why doesn't anybody write about them? 00:30:46.710 --> 00:30:48.240 Or why do we not write enough about them? 00:30:48.240 --> 00:30:49.470 I guess would be the better question. 00:30:49.530 --> 00:30:49.710 >> Yeah. 00:30:49.710 --> 00:30:53.669 The hard thing I feel like with best practices is it's all opinion-based, 00:30:54.330 --> 00:30:58.229 but hopefully, you know, with the Haskell foundation and the committee 00:30:58.229 --> 00:31:03.000 there and the team, it'd be nice to see if something from that foundation 00:31:03.000 --> 00:31:06.000 could kind of help lead the charge in the best practices, movement. 00:31:06.540 --> 00:31:11.850 And then, you know, kind of keep a series of blog posts or, you know, video series 00:31:11.850 --> 00:31:17.159 or something to kind of illustrate, you know, as a whole, like what's the Haskell 00:31:17.159 --> 00:31:18.629 foundation thinks about these things. 00:31:19.139 --> 00:31:19.409 Um, 00:31:19.439 --> 00:31:19.500 >> yeah. 00:31:20.340 --> 00:31:23.190 I think best practices are inherently subjective. 00:31:23.190 --> 00:31:27.300 So it doesn't bother me too much that, you know, there, it best practices may 00:31:27.300 --> 00:31:31.740 change or may depend on who you ask, but I still think it'd be really valuable. 00:31:32.160 --> 00:31:33.780 And you know, I'm guilty of this as well. 00:31:33.780 --> 00:31:38.010 I run a team of Haskell developers and we haven't written much about what we do or 00:31:38.010 --> 00:31:40.560 why we do it, but, uh, we probably should. 00:31:40.710 --> 00:31:43.560 And maybe I'll try to make that a focus in the coming year. 00:31:44.350 --> 00:31:48.000 >> Maybe so we'll have to keep, we can make Haskell weekly podcast, 00:31:48.030 --> 00:31:49.650 a accountability partner to that. 00:31:51.060 --> 00:31:51.960 >> Yes, I like it. 00:31:51.990 --> 00:31:52.200 Yeah. 00:31:53.340 --> 00:31:58.410 Um, so the next big section of the survey results were for feelings 00:31:58.410 --> 00:32:00.930 and I feel like, uh, these haven't changed too much year over year. 00:32:01.695 --> 00:32:05.055 And the only thing I want to point out is that overall, when they're presented here 00:32:05.055 --> 00:32:07.305 in the survey results, they're sorted. 00:32:07.305 --> 00:32:11.745 So the ones that are most positive or that most people agree with are toward the top. 00:32:11.805 --> 00:32:14.805 And then the ones that people mostly disagree with are at the bottom. 00:32:15.315 --> 00:32:18.405 So as you scroll through things, get more and more bleak, and then 00:32:18.405 --> 00:32:21.915 you get down to the bottom and it's like, oh, I can find Haskell jobs. 00:32:21.915 --> 00:32:24.125 And I can reason about the performance of my Haskell code. 00:32:24.125 --> 00:32:26.835 Those are the things people disagree with the most. 00:32:27.075 --> 00:32:27.315 >> Yeah. 00:32:27.345 --> 00:32:32.264 Well, I mean, if you're interested in a Haskell job, Caribou's hiring. 00:32:32.264 --> 00:32:37.185 So is ACI Learning, so there's Haskell jobs out there for you, if you want. 00:32:37.315 --> 00:32:38.385 you know, Hit 00:32:38.385 --> 00:32:38.745 >> us up. 00:32:39.645 --> 00:32:40.695 Yeah, please do. 00:32:42.054 --> 00:32:43.514 All right, Cam, was there anything else in the survey 00:32:43.514 --> 00:32:44.745 results you wanted to talk about? 00:32:45.225 --> 00:32:45.735 Um, 00:32:46.365 --> 00:32:47.145 >> I don't think so. 00:32:47.145 --> 00:32:50.175 I mean, I think this survey is really cool. 00:32:50.235 --> 00:32:52.905 I mean, thank you for kind of putting it all together and kind 00:32:52.905 --> 00:32:57.344 of, you know, keeping it organized and, you know, displaying results. 00:32:57.344 --> 00:32:59.324 I think that's a big Testament to. 00:32:59.324 --> 00:33:04.304 like, to just how much impact you have on the Haskell community. 00:33:04.304 --> 00:33:05.084 And we appreciate 00:33:05.084 --> 00:33:05.324 >> that. 00:33:05.745 --> 00:33:06.344 Uh, thanks. 00:33:06.614 --> 00:33:07.125 I appreciate it. 00:33:07.125 --> 00:33:07.245 It's 00:33:07.245 --> 00:33:10.125 >> nice to have someone who's willing to kind of take that on. 00:33:10.425 --> 00:33:14.385 Um, and for you to spearhead it for five years is impressive. 00:33:14.475 --> 00:33:15.314 Uh, needless to say. 00:33:15.975 --> 00:33:20.864 Um, so yeah, I don't, I don't think I have anything else on the survey. 00:33:20.864 --> 00:33:22.395 Do you have anything else you wanted to 00:33:22.844 --> 00:33:23.145 >> share? 00:33:24.315 --> 00:33:25.065 No, that was it. 00:33:25.095 --> 00:33:28.605 And, uh, again, thanks for the kind words I enjoy running the survey, but I will 00:33:28.605 --> 00:33:31.785 also enjoy handing it off to the Haskell foundation if they want to pick it up 00:33:31.875 --> 00:33:35.805 and the secret to doing something like this from my point of view is automate 00:33:35.805 --> 00:33:39.945 as much as you can, because that's what lets you do it over and over again. 00:33:40.365 --> 00:33:40.635 Yep. 00:33:41.415 --> 00:33:45.284 >> Yeah, it sounds like, uh, a good programmer's motto 00:33:46.935 --> 00:33:47.534 >> for sure. 00:33:47.895 --> 00:33:48.135 Yeah. 00:33:48.375 --> 00:33:48.524 All right. 00:33:48.524 --> 00:33:50.955 Well, I think that'll do it for us this week. 00:33:51.014 --> 00:33:51.435 Is that right? 00:33:51.465 --> 00:33:51.675 Yeah. 00:33:51.675 --> 00:33:51.975 That'll, 00:33:51.985 --> 00:33:52.605 >> that'll be it. 00:33:52.784 --> 00:33:53.235 Yeah. 00:33:53.594 --> 00:33:56.705 Thank you all for listening to the Haskell weekly podcast. 00:33:56.735 --> 00:34:00.995 Uh, I Camera Gera and Taylor, have been your hosts. 00:34:01.334 --> 00:34:05.804 Um, and if you are curious about where you can find Haskell weekly, just check out 00:34:05.804 --> 00:34:12.014 our website at haskellweekly.news, um, and also sign up for the weekly newsletter. 00:34:12.255 --> 00:34:14.374 And you can hear more about the articles we're talking about. 00:34:14.940 --> 00:34:18.300 Um, As my dog is running into this room. 00:34:18.330 --> 00:34:18.570 So, 00:34:18.960 --> 00:34:22.110 >> um, your dog is so excited, wants to sign up for the newsletter 00:34:22.380 --> 00:34:22.680 >> ready? 00:34:22.950 --> 00:34:24.389 So, um, but yeah, 00:34:25.680 --> 00:34:26.280 >> toss it over to you. 00:34:26.310 --> 00:34:30.090 And this week, as every week, we are brought to you by 00:34:30.090 --> 00:34:31.990 my employer, ACI Learning. 00:34:32.550 --> 00:34:37.600 If you'd like to get started in IT training, head over to ITPro.TV and use 00:34:37.600 --> 00:34:42.719 promo code HaskellWeekly30 to get 30% off the lifetime of your subscription. 00:34:43.529 --> 00:34:47.590 That's ITPro.TV, promo code HaskellWeekly30. 00:34:48.389 --> 00:34:48.719 Awesome. 00:34:48.900 --> 00:34:49.679 Thanks for listening. 00:34:49.889 --> 00:34:52.750 And we'll see you next week, peace.