> Haskell was conceived in 1990, and the latest version of the standard is from 2010
Haskell was released in 1990, but the designs started on Haskell itself in 1987 and were heavily based on prior languages; standardizing on a common, agreeable subset. The fact that there is a 2010 version of the spec provides zero insight into how much the language has evolved over that 23 year period. That's not to say it hasn't evolved, just that it's silly to pick on my obviously hyperbolic trivialization of 20 years of progress.
> Haskell is evolving rapidly precisely due to the use of language extensions
Sure. And the fact that it is still rapidly evolving, especially in the type system department, is proof that there are interesting classes of problems that don't fit in to Haskell's type system in a sufficiently pleasing way.
Evolution is a good thing & I have a ton of respect for both Haskell & the PL research community. See the rest of my post for how I'd prefer an advanced language/type-system duo to work in practice.
Haskell was released in 1990, but the designs started on Haskell itself in 1987 and were heavily based on prior languages; standardizing on a common, agreeable subset. The fact that there is a 2010 version of the spec provides zero insight into how much the language has evolved over that 23 year period. That's not to say it hasn't evolved, just that it's silly to pick on my obviously hyperbolic trivialization of 20 years of progress.
> Haskell is evolving rapidly precisely due to the use of language extensions
Sure. And the fact that it is still rapidly evolving, especially in the type system department, is proof that there are interesting classes of problems that don't fit in to Haskell's type system in a sufficiently pleasing way.
Evolution is a good thing & I have a ton of respect for both Haskell & the PL research community. See the rest of my post for how I'd prefer an advanced language/type-system duo to work in practice.