== Quote from retard (r...@tard.com.invalid)'s article > >>> 2. a research project (Haskell) > >> > >> Haskell stopped being a research project many years ago, Haskell > >> development now happens in companies (including Microsoft) as much as > >> in universities and is about creating good examples of software > >> engineering. Research languages are things like X10, Chapel, OCaml, C > >> ++. > > > > It still was designed as a research project. It even says so in the > > Haskell 98 report: > > > > "The committee intended that Haskell would serve as a basis for future > > research in language design, and hoped that extensions or variants of > > the language would appear, incorporating experimental features." -- > > Haskell98 > Something has happened. There are few enterprises using Haskell and the > GHC compiler is rather stable after years of development effort. There > are also truckloads of bindings to various libraries and many libraries > written in Haskell. > I guess it's terribly hard to get rid of the 'ivory tower' stigma. What > do you think is missing? They have: > * a good compiler (more mature than dmd) > * large set of libraries (more than d, seriously more than d2) > * an active community (larger and more talented than d programmers) > * research papers (does anyone have any idea if a single academic > conference paper has ever been written about d?) > * website (better than digitalmars.com) > * a well defined language
Multiple paradigms are what's missing. I refuse to consider any language that adheres so rigidly to a single paradigm as anything more than an ivory tower research project, no matter what. In the real world no one paradigm suits every problem, or even every small subproblem. I emphasize the small subproblem part because it implies that using multiple languages isn't they answer.