this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2025
40 points (100.0% liked)
Programming
22823 readers
241 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The only things on the bad list that I agree with are top-level type inference and small communities. And ocamls windows support is terrible. Haskell's is more than ok now.
In Haskell, any style guide worth its salt requires annotations on top level functions, and many of them also require annotations on local bindings. This pretty effectively works around the problem.
Bad code will be unreadable in any language of course. But the other things don't themselves make code unreadable once you're actually familiar with the language and its ecosystem.
Yeah I'm talking about good code, or at least not bad code. Let's not "no true Scotsman" this.
Even for good code you don't need syntax highlighting to easily see which identifiers are function names and which are their parameters in Rust.
I don't need syntax highlighting for that in Haskell either. My usual highlighting just leaves them both in the default text color.
And I'm specifically arguing that the other things on your list do not inherently make code bad.