>I'm sitting in a chair as I write this. Nobody else has sat in this chair today. Am I on the cutting edge of research?
No, but you're on the cutting edge of straw-man argumentation trivializing.
Doing something that has been done very few times, or not ever, in a whole programming paradigm (building a game functionally)
is qualitatively and quantitatively different than:
doing something that has been done trivially for centuries just not in this particular day && by somebody else than you && in one piece of furniture you own (you sitting on a chair).
If you cannot understand this, I guess it makes no sense further arguing about it.
> No, but you're on the cutting edge of straw-man argumentation trivializing.
If only I was that good!
Research contributions generally have be novel AND significant. We have seen that novelty alone is not sufficient (sitting in the chair). Significant generally means applicable to a broad range of problems. Monads are significant, as one abstraction can encode a huge range of structures (containers, control flow, etc.) Building a game in Haskell is not a priori novel OR significant. People have done this before (e.g. http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Frag). Haskell has good facilities for managing concurrency and state. It's not obvious to me that one would need to go beyond these to build a game. A game would probably need to bind to some C libraries but I don't see this as a significant contribution.
The original post made the following points:
- Writing a game in Haskell in novel (No. See above.)
- Writing a game in Haskell will generate significant contributions to the wider community. I don't see this.
Furthermore, it trivialised the accomplishments of both the functional programming community and those who really are on the cutting edge of research.
No, but you're on the cutting edge of straw-man argumentation trivializing.
Doing something that has been done very few times, or not ever, in a whole programming paradigm (building a game functionally)
is qualitatively and quantitatively different than:
doing something that has been done trivially for centuries just not in this particular day && by somebody else than you && in one piece of furniture you own (you sitting on a chair).
If you cannot understand this, I guess it makes no sense further arguing about it.