Re: What do you LISPers think of Haskell?

#1 08-27-2008, 07:39 PM

On 28 Aug., 01:33, Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> parnell wrote:
> >> So we cannot reasonably draw any relevant conclusions from this data, at
> >> least not for Ubuntu where such trend data is not even available (AFAIK).
>
> > Yes we finally agree.
>
> >> Due to the aforementioned problems those data are not an accurate
> >> reflection of anything interesting and the conclusion stands.
>
> > Conclusion stands, I don't think so. Remember what you just said: "we
> > cannot reasonably draw any relevant conclusions from this data".
>
> Note that I was talking about the "recent" data that you analyzed and
> not the "installed" data that was analyzed in the article that I cited.
>
> > If you examine the graph of the old vs the recent you see that they
> > are nearly the inverse of each other and as recent jumps old falls.
>
> Yes.
>
> > It would seem to be that these are caused by people who do not
> > otherwise use the packages updating the package and then as the
> > package remains unused it moves from the recent into the old category.
>
> >http://people.debian.org/~igloo/popc...?packages=unis...
>
> %2Cdarcs&show_installed=on&show_vote=on&show_old=o n&show_recent=on&want_leg end=on&from_date=&to_date=&hlght_date=&date_fmt=%2 5Y-%25m&beenhere=1
>
>
>
> > The voted installs seem to trend right along with the installs,
>
> I disagree. Indeed, over the past year the "voted" has fallen whereas
> the "installs" have risen for Darcs according to the data you just cited.
>
> From the data you cite, large fluctuations correlate between the "old"
> and "recent" data and the "vote" column to a lesser degree but
> the "installed" column (that I analyzed) does not exhibit these
> fluctuations at all.
>
> > so if
> > they are not "an accurate reflection of anything interesting" then
> > neither are the total installs in which case we are in complete
> > agreement.
>
> Had your previous assertion been true then I would agree but I cannot see
> that this is the case. The "installed" data that I analyzed does not trend
> with the "vote" data and does not correlate with the fluctuations in
> the "recent" and "old" data. So this source of error did not affect my
> analysis.
>
>
>
> >> > I agree with the claim:
> >> > FFTW is 10x more successful than any other open source OCaml or
> >> > Haskell software package in the Debian/Unbuntu popcon.
>
> >> You are talking about binary packages. The core of the FFTW source code
> >> is, of course, written in OCaml. Moreover, we can quantify the number of
> >> source code installs, which certainly does explicitly include the OCaml
> >> code. For Debian alone, we find:
>
> >> 847 * fftw3 * * * * * * * * * * * * *15976*2305 *5802 *2180 *5689
>
> >> So the OCaml source code to FFTW is being downloaded 2,180 times per
> >> month by Debian users alone.
>
> > Jon I agree 100% that FFTW is an "OCaml" package I did not mean to
> > imply otherwise. *My point is that it is 10 times more popular than
> > any of the other packages that you included in your data.
>
> Yes.
>
> > The other
> > OCaml and the Haskell packages are in the same ball park as far as
> > total installs or "votes" are concerned.
>
> Unison also has 3x more installs than anything written in Haskell but my
> original point was also that there are many more popular projects written
> in OCaml than Haskell. Indeed, even excluding FFTW, open source OCaml
> software on Debian+Ubuntu still has 7x more users than Haskell and that (to
> me) is a very significant discrepancy. Moreover, it is an underestimate
> because we have not counted several other popular OCaml projects like
> MTASC, ADVI, HaXe and so on.
>
> > So what one can conclude from this is that the language that one chooses
> > to create an open source project in does not seem to matter nearly as much
> > as what that package will do (or really to be more accurate some unknown
> > factor that is not captured in the data).
>
> That is only one of many possible explanations. For example, another
> equally-plausible explanation is that Haskell is inherently incapable of
> solving these problems in a usable way. I suspect the truth is somewhere in
> between.
>

This (popularity of Haskell and OCAML) is completely off-topic in
comp.lang.lisp. Move to comp.lang.functional. You may advertise there.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode