tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6919669035402552575.post977341163007317308..comments2022-12-14T11:05:23.203-08:00Comments on RuMiNaTiOnS: @ConalElliott re: What resources & practices (teaching Haskell)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07441435909838565635noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6919669035402552575.post-74948230901837699522011-10-05T21:51:45.855-07:002011-10-05T21:51:45.855-07:00Thanks, Cliff! I like your suggestions very much. ...Thanks, Cliff! I like your suggestions very much. We start tomorrow. I expect it'll be a lot of fun.Conalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756984502464196668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6919669035402552575.post-77557384279224429872011-10-04T21:35:19.139-07:002011-10-04T21:35:19.139-07:00Anonymous: Considering the post is about convertin...Anonymous: Considering the post is about converting C++/Java users it would seem that my particular failed experiment in conversion is relevant.<br /><br />It's not like I just tried it for an afternoon, either. I used Haskell exclusively for home projects for about a year; producing a few toss-away games, plenty of web scraping scripts, et cetera.<br /><br />MCAndre: I prefer strong typing, and usually abide by type constraints wherever possible in other languages; most of my recent work has been in C++ and C#.<br /><br />However, with Haskell I <i>felt</i> as though I was spending more time divining how to get various libraries and types in Haskell to properly talk to one another then I was spending writing code.<br /><br />I finally gave up on it when I went back to some old code, saw a myriad of specialized operators which I couldn't recall their purpose, and instead of busting open ghci to start inspecting I just archived my whole Haskell workspace and went back to C++.<br /><br />I don't think I'm much of a slouch, either. I had high hopes for Haskell, and I still do. Most of my irritation with it would evaporate with better tools; but at the time Leksah was but a few months old and the Emacs support was dodgy at best.danlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09617013155169577134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6919669035402552575.post-61880203499090617872011-10-04T18:25:17.780-07:002011-10-04T18:25:17.780-07:00Danly: Were you used to Perl or some other weakly-...Danly: Were you used to Perl or some other weakly-typed language? A major source of bugs is casting bad values (either implicitly or with C-like casting). You might find that after your program compiles in Haskell, you have a lot less bugs than you're used to.MCAndrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10025555896996100599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6919669035402552575.post-45317762866016604462011-10-04T15:04:01.235-07:002011-10-04T15:04:01.235-07:00With all due respect, danly, if you don't like...With all due respect, danly, if you don't like Haskell there are better forums to express it than in the comments of a post unrelated to your complaints other than that it is about Haskell.<br /><br />(Your complaints themselves are not very accurate, but I won't clog the place further.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6919669035402552575.post-26521600276534580422011-10-04T15:01:20.605-07:002011-10-04T15:01:20.605-07:00My personal frustration with Haskell was the insan...My personal frustration with Haskell was the insane amount of recasting I was doing to perform the simplest of tasks.<br /><br />It seems like the moment you step away from algorithmic, abstract number crunching and into the land of I/O that Haskell crumbles into a hideous heap.danlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09617013155169577134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6919669035402552575.post-13875744729295486512011-10-04T14:55:53.251-07:002011-10-04T14:55:53.251-07:00The problem with Haskell is not that it's obtu...The problem with Haskell is not that it's obtuse or confusing; but that it's unreadable in the same manner as Perl.<br /><br />There's a reason why many other languages opt to disallow most operator overloading.<br /><br />Having <> <|> --> <-- and other 'symbols' change their meanings based on the underlying types means that for projects with 2 or more developers on board you're going to end up writing more comments than code.danlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09617013155169577134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6919669035402552575.post-58844136232811728732011-10-04T12:59:04.839-07:002011-10-04T12:59:04.839-07:00> Saying things out loud helps slow things down...> Saying things out loud helps slow things down, forces them to make connections between symbols, words and definitions so fundamental they are rarely written down.<br /><br />I think you're so right with that. Going from C++ to Java, C#, Python etc. is easy, because in some sense they are the same. But Haskell is a completely different category and you can't just skip over the fundamenteals. If I had to learn it again, I would definitely do very basic exercise.lambdorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00828787165931338102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6919669035402552575.post-52672150820520438042011-10-01T15:54:35.677-07:002011-10-01T15:54:35.677-07:00"has type""has type"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07441435909838565635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6919669035402552575.post-11809094013242398572011-10-01T14:43:06.809-07:002011-10-01T14:43:06.809-07:00How do you say "::"How do you say "::"Zakihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17626187476517296498noreply@blogger.com