I don't understand why they didn't use Java with ANTLR. It can also generate parsers in many other languages, but Java version supports more advanced stuff.
I mean, I guess Haskell is cool, but their critism of Java sounds like more of a design choice than a deal breaker. Did they really need to reinvent this wheel in an unpopular language where almost nobody can reuse/improve their work?
I don't mean to be dismissive, but when your plans are to open source something corporate sponsored, you should do it in a way that benefits the community significantly. There's 20 other languages they could have chosen that fulfilled that objective better
> I don't mean to be dismissive, but when your plans are to open source something corporate sponsored, you should do it in a way that benefits the community significantly
This is a super weird objection to me; is your argument that open sourcing something that might not be useful to others is worse than just keeping it closed-source? Even if literally nobody else ever gets any use from this, I don't see why it's harmful for it to be open sourced. More generally, I feel like companies releasing everything that they don't have a strong business reason not to as open source is strictly positive.
More if you're going to open source something that widely useful you should write it in a common language.
Otherwise the public benefit to open sourcing it is less. In this case, the project is almost as useful as binaries. It's unlikely that many will able to integrate into existing systems or even have the Haskell skills to work with it
I guess I just have a fundamentally different view on open source than you. I don't see anything wrong with a company writing a tool in the way that is best for them given their current circumstances (e.g. skills of the team working on it) and then open sourcing it. The team that wrote this obviously felt that Haskell was their best choice for this project, and I don't begrudge them for open sourcing it just because it might not be useful for others.
There's already parsing support for many languages, and the parser itself is world-class. It's used internally by tons of systems. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANTLR#Projects
I mean, I guess Haskell is cool, but their critism of Java sounds like more of a design choice than a deal breaker. Did they really need to reinvent this wheel in an unpopular language where almost nobody can reuse/improve their work?
I don't mean to be dismissive, but when your plans are to open source something corporate sponsored, you should do it in a way that benefits the community significantly. There's 20 other languages they could have chosen that fulfilled that objective better