> But almost nobody uses Haskell

Sad, but true

> partly because of poor ergonomics like this!

I'm somewhat dubious that's the reason, partly because I find such ergonomic excellent! Especially those provided by my capability system Bluefin: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/bluefin

In any case, anywhere they’re doing HTTP calls they are already threading IO, so they don’t have to pay an additional cost.

But, flipping the script, if you want to see something like Zig's `Io` interface in Haskell then have a look at my capability system Bluefin, particularly Bluefin.IO. The equivalent of Zig's `Io` is called `IOE` and you can't do IO without it!

https://hackage-content.haskell.org/package/bluefin-0.5.1.0/...

Regarding custom allocators and such, well, that could fit into the same pattern, in principle, since capabilities/regions/lifetimes are pretty much the same pattern. I don't know how one would plug that into Haskell's RTS.

What do you mean, "can't tell"? If I see this in Python

    (A)(B)(C)

    A(B)(C)

I grant you that it is odd to those who are unfamiliar and it took me quite a while to get used to it, but it's much better to write that way in Haskell when writing programs that use higher-order functions.

    l = [1, [2, cat], 4]

    {-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
    
    import Control.Lens
    
    data Cat = Cat { _age :: Int }
      deriving Show
    makeLenses ''Cat
    
    data Item
      = I Int
      | L [Item]
      | C Cat
      deriving Show
    
    makePrisms ''Item
    
    cat :: Cat
    cat = Cat 3
    
    l :: [Item]
    l = [I 1, L [I 2, C cat], I 4]
    
    l' :: [Item]
    l' = set (ix 1 . _L . ix 1 . _C . age) 9 l
    

    ghci> l'
    [I 1,L [I 2,C (Cat {_age = 9})],I 4]

> All of these things were later claimed as Agile innovations

Are there some references that demonstrate that? [EDIT: that the signatories thought they were their own innovations]

And if so, is that a bad thing? Ideas are repeatedly rediscovered. This article isn't called "Saying goodbye to Royce, Bell and Thayer", and I'm wondering why not.

That's not true for the way I understand agile. The way I understand it, the testable outcome is whether the principles of the agile manifesto are satisfied

For example, is your highest priority to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software? If not then you're not agile.

https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html

    newtype FlippedIO a = MkFlippedIO { runFlippedIO :: IO a }
      deriving Functor
    
    instance Applicative FlippedIO where
      pure = MkFlippedIO . pure
      liftA2 f (MkFlippedIO x) (MkFlippedIO y) =
        MkFlippedIO ((flip . liftA2 . flip) f x y)
    
    data Person = Person String String
      deriving Show
    
    putStrLnFlipped = MkFlippedIO . putStrLn
    
    getLineFlipped = MkFlippedIO getLine
    
    getPerson :: IO Person
    getPerson = runFlippedIO $
      Person
        <$> (putStrLnFlipped "Enter your first name:" *> getLineFlipped)
        <*> (putStrLnFlipped "Enter your last name:"  *> getLineFlipped)

    ghci> getPerson
    One
    Enter your last name:
    Two
    Enter your first name:
    Person "Two" "One"

Are household appliances trying to replace humans?

But I think we're established the answer to the question I originally asked. Thanks for participating.

And what exactly is Israel doing there, on that land the size of an athletics track? Something very nefarious?

> Those who know their history also know that the current American administration is of a kind that usually ascends following the rules, but then never voluntarily leaves power.

and not really becoming of a top level Hacker News post. I requested a clarification from bojan and they did not respond to the request. We're all welcome to make our own interpretation of that.

If it's a strong claim it's not much of a gamble, is it? Talk is cheap.