Actually, much better approach is to shut the fsck up and write something
useful. Funny how Erlang crowd doesn't show that much of smugness when it
comes to parallel/concurrent programming. I've only seen two Haskell programs
that were at least remotely useful to me (one being Pandoc), and then again,
those programs had awful size of the binary and atrocious memory requirements.
>Actually, much better approach is to shut the fsck up and write something useful
No, it really isn't. What is the goal there? To prove you can use a general purpose language to write software? There's tons of software already that proves that. How many haskell projects need to exist before it has proven itself or whatever it is you are expecting from this? If I write enough haskell software, the industry will just suddenly stop using bad languages to write bad software and poof care about quality miraculously? How is the industry supposed to know I have written this haskell software if I am not allowed to talk about haskell, or writing software in haskell, or how good haskell was for writing software when I used it? And why is haskell the only language where nobody is allowed to talk about it or they are variously branded smug, arrogant, academic blowhards, etc, etc?
I do (well Scala rather than Haskell); I write useful programs and am paid well for it. But it's still frustrating to see the sheer wastefulness of so much of the wider industry.
