For me personally (and also for everyone at work), I'm doing all package management with Nix. I'm happy with the setup. There is a learning curve with Nix, but as you can imagine this has shortened now with AI.

For context, I've been writing Haskell for quite a long time and I'm maintaining a few packages like Yesod.

— Rich Hickey, Effective Programs[0]

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V1FtfBDsLU&t=4020s

---

A disastrously poor take. I used to work at a Clojure company, and there's no chance I'd ever go back to that.

I'm guessing the answers will be predictable and disappointing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_Russia

Gerasimov? Is it you?

Ukraine is standing because they took action.

Something that helps me keep my sanity and dignity is by materially supporting Ukrainian soldiers. I will never regret having stood on the right side of history on this.

If anyone wants to contribute but you aren't sure how, I'm happy to help. Email is in the profile.

Sorry, did you mean East Vietnam Sea?

Alexis King is a woman.

> that languages with rich DX around rigid typing encourage an architecture that's rigidly typed, and that rigidly typed codebases tend to come up against predictable issues.

I agree with neither of these points.

During the day, we'll be somewhere where they have a generator. At night, it's cold. But you can somewhat prepare for this. Two or three layers of duvets and blankets, paired with a hot water bottle somewhere in the middle of the bed under the covers will get you through the night.

It sounds like you're annoyed that Hickey's position was effectively challenged.

> What I'm saying is that different languages have different paths of desire, and the kinds of problems identified in the original article are more the kind of problems that tend to crop up with heavy use of types, than they are the kind of problem that has much of anything to do with functional programming.

I don't think this is correct at all. I don't think TFA has anything at all to do with types or FP (despite the clickbaity title), as numerous other people here have already pointed out. The article isn't attacking rigid types. The author's point is that no single-program analysis — typed or untyped — covers the version boundary (or system boundaries more generally).

A Haskell service that receives an unknown enum variant doesn't have to crash — you parse the cases you care about and ignore the rest. The "path of desire" you're describing isn't a property of the language.

I suppose "path of desire" here is a matter of opinion. In my experience, crashing on unknown inputs is not idiomatic Haskell, nor is it desirable.

You know Haskell programmers write tests, right?

I am a Chief Technology Officer[^1].

Your opinion here is common, and misguided.

Here is why: https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2020/01/19/no-dynamic-typ...

---

[^1]: Literally nobody cares.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkPtfPwu3DM