> much of the blogging community has (I think wrongly) focused on explaining advanced concepts rather than making easy introductions.
> much of the blogging community has (I think wrongly) focused on explaining advanced concepts rather than making easy introductions. I would like to make two notes about this: - Most of the Haskell tutorial examples are about computing pi, fibs, and other math functions or series. Which is fine, but rather obvious beyond the recursion vs iteration bit. It's not just that newcomers arrive to Haskell with an imperative mindset, it's that they (we?) come with imperative (stateful) algorithms , which of course turn out to be a nightmare to implement. - I found those explanations about Monads, etc necessary because as soon as I wanted to do anything less obvious than calculating a function or series, it was pretty hard to figure out how to get it done. For example, adding print logs to my code to debug, or building the code to output the formatted result of my program. "Why can't I use map here?" "What is is this mapM thing?" are very real roadblocks. Those problems are not unique to Haskell, of course, but Haskell's purity makes it much more inflexible - you can't do some part the Haskell way to learn the ropes while you do the rest imperatively to get actual, satisfying results.
Posted by Jare on May 9, 2014, 9:45 PM
Tags
Related issues
- C++ is the "just here to deliver" language.
- He is not weirdly political, he has just more normal views, I know that is something hard to grasp for some tech bro.
- Of course you don't have a right to murder anyone.
- Unify Control and Container nodes, allow children to pick the behavior
- I was talking about this the other day with someone - broadly I agree with this, they're absolutely fantastic for getting a prototype so ...
- In theory you could express most things as a flowchart but the complexity of doing that quickly escalates.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.9,500 issues0 comments
ux (EdTech)
C++ is the "just here to deliver" language.
He is not weirdly political, he has just more normal views, I know that is something hard to grasp for some tech bro.
Of course you don't have a right to murder anyone.
Unify Control and Container nodes, allow children to pick the behavior
I was talking about this the other day with someone - broadly I agree with this, they're absolutely fantastic for getting a prototype so ...
In theory you could express most things as a flowchart but the complexity of doing that quickly escalates.
It's not really hard to onboard new engineers with Scala, Clojure or even Ruby backgrounds.
Very understanding (or even no) partners is probably a large percentage of it!
> much of the blogging community has (I think wrongly) focused on explaining advanced concepts rather than making easy introductions.
> much of the blogging community has (I think wrongly) focused on explaining advanced concepts rather than making easy introductions. I would like to make two notes about this: - Most of the Haskell tutorial examples are about computing pi, fibs, and other math functions or series. Which is fine, but rather obvious beyond the recursion vs iteration bit. It's not just that newcomers arrive to Haskell with an imperative mindset, it's that they (we?) come with imperative (stateful) algorithms , which of course turn out to be a nightmare to implement. - I found those explanations about Monads, etc necessary because as soon as I wanted to do anything less obvious than calculating a function or series, it was pretty hard to figure out how to get it done. For example, adding print logs to my code to debug, or building the code to output the formatted result of my program. "Why can't I use map here?" "What is is this mapM thing?" are very real roadblocks. Those problems are not unique to Haskell, of course, but Haskell's purity makes it much more inflexible - you can't do some part the Haskell way to learn the ropes while you do the rest imperatively to get actual, satisfying results.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.