[Haskell-cafe] New slogan for haskell.org

[Don Stewart]

catamorphism:
> On 10/4/07, Don Stewart <dons at galois.com> wrote:
> > It was raised at CUFP today that while Python has:
> >
> >     Python is a dynamic object-oriented programming language that can be
> >     used for many kinds of software development. It offers strong
> >     support for integration with other languages and tools, comes with
> >     extensive standard libraries, and can be learned in a few days. Many
> >     Python programmers report substantial productivity gains and feel
> >     the language encourages the development of higher quality, more
> >     maintainable code.
> >
> > With the links from the start about using Python for various purposes,
> > along with reassuring text about licenses and so on.
> >
> > Note its all about how it can help you.
> >
> > The Haskell website has the rather strange motivational text:
> >
> >     Haskell is a general purpose, purely functional programming language
> >     featuring static typing, higher order functions, polymorphism, type
> >     classes, and monadic effects. Haskell compilers are freely available
> >     for almost any computer.
> >
> > Which doesn't say why these help you.
> >
> > Any suggestions on a 2 or 3 sentence spiel about what's available?
> >
> > Here's some quick points:
> >
> >     General purpose: applications from OS kernels to compilers to web dev to ...
> >     Strong integration with other languages: FFI, and FFI binding tools
> >     Many developer tools: debugger, profiler, code coverage, QuickCheck
> >     Extensive libraries: central library repository, central repo hosting
> >     Productivity, robustness, maintainability: purity, type system, etc
> >     Parallelism!
> >
> 
> Can't we embrace the power of 'and'? It's wonderful that Haskell is
> seeing more practical use, but we shouldn't forget the foundations,
> either. Maybe we should put your second description first, and *then*
> have a paragraph saying, "and, for those who know what these are,
> polymorphism, monadic effects, etc."? Only describing Haskell in terms
> of software engineeering doesn't seem right to me.

Yes, I think that's the best step. Combine both why you'd use it, with
what unique features enable this. 

-- Don