Haskell has some ugly corners like any language.
But your objections are not justified, since Haskell is a research language, with the aim of funtional programming with lazy evalutaion. It was never intended that Haskell would actually be a language for industrial software development. Therefore, I do not see the many compiler extensions as a valid criticism or the lack of backward compatibility. Just look at Haskell as a teaching language to see things differently than in most imperative junk languages.
Frankly, the criticism that Haskell compiles into binary formats is also quite nonsense because, from a user's perspective, application programs in interpreted languages or virtual environments are a total waste of resources.
What I mainly criticize about Haskell are missing things like real composite types or more practical namespace solutions; or the absence of named arguments and optional parameters. Also, I do not like the too many syntax sugar, and I think it would have been better to make the monad handling more handy in regular syntax.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Haskell has some ugly corners like any language.
But your objections are not justified, since Haskell is a research language, with the aim of funtional programming with lazy evalutaion. It was never intended that Haskell would actually be a language for industrial software development. Therefore, I do not see the many compiler extensions as a valid criticism or the lack of backward compatibility. Just look at Haskell as a teaching language to see things differently than in most imperative junk languages.
Frankly, the criticism that Haskell compiles into binary formats is also quite nonsense because, from a user's perspective, application programs in interpreted languages or virtual environments are a total waste of resources.
What I mainly criticize about Haskell are missing things like real composite types or more practical namespace solutions; or the absence of named arguments and optional parameters. Also, I do not like the too many syntax sugar, and I think it would have been better to make the monad handling more handy in regular syntax.