On 31/01/07, Joe Re [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead of having someone work in solitude with occasional mailings back and
forth on the list, I would rather have an open wiki for the collection of
ideas from everyone. Then, if you really wanted, a single person can use
those to create an 'editor
Hello Michael,
Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 4:50:17 AM, you wrote:
I disagree with this part. Books written by committee lack cohesion
unless they have an overbearing editor at the helm.
i've provided several urls of wikipages written by us together. and
this pages seems to be very popular
On 31/01/07, Michael T. Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree with this part. Books written by committee lack cohesion
unless they have an overbearing editor at the helm. What I've seen on the
Wiki as regards idioms, standard practices, etc. -- and this is true of
every language wiki
On 31/01/07, Michael T. Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree with this part. Books written by committee lack cohesion unless
they
have an overbearing editor at the helm.
While that might be a problem for a 'Haskell for the Working
Programmer Book' it wouldn't be a problem at all for
Hello Steve,
Friday, January 26, 2007, 10:03:09 PM, you wrote:
Haskell _is_ hard, although I don't think it's _too_ hard, or I wouldn't
...
The audience for programming languages like Haskell is always going to
be small, because it appeals to those who want to understand how the TV
works,
Hello Donald,
Saturday, January 27, 2007, 10:18:44 AM, you wrote:
I've never taken a graduate-level class in category theory, or any
course on category theory, and I'm a Haskell implementor. So perhaps
I haven't done any graduate level category theory either, and I hack
Haskell 24/7! Let's
Hello Kirsten,
Saturday, January 27, 2007, 10:05:15 AM, you wrote:
On the other hand, Meijer also has a PhD in computer science... is his
judgment on Haskell's difficulty or lack thereof worthless, too? If
not, then surely, judgments about whether Haskell is too hard can't
have much to do
Hello Paul,
Monday, January 29, 2007, 5:06:42 PM, you wrote:
I'm very serious about the need for a Haskell for the Working
Programmer book. And by this I mean a book and not a tutorial on
some part of Haskell which proves difficult.
Agreed. Something I can keep on my desk for reference,
On Wed, 2007-31-01 at 03:25 +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
I'm very serious about the need for a Haskell for the Working
Programmer book. And by this I mean a book and not a tutorial on
some part of Haskell which proves difficult.
Agreed. Something I can keep on my desk for reference,
[I apologize for odd quoting, but I dislike sending html emails]
I do like the idea of developing a table of contents first and backfilling
it, though. I would amend the process, however, to avoid the WikiBloat that
seems to inevitably follow when documentation projects get too open.
Instead of
On 29/01/07, Michael T. Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I started, given that I could actually have the free time now, looking at
Haskell again about a year ago. (It's a major point in Haskell's favour
that it always stuck around in my mind after first encountering and
rejecting it,
Frederick Ross wrote:
here's my completely anecdotal view of the history
of hard in programming...
This history is accurate and insightful.
...when the kids... and the professors pretend that it was always
this way... then they will grow up... Until then, I
will continue to hear people say
On Fri, 2007-26-01 at 22:01 -0600, Collin Winter wrote:
I find it incredibly insulting for you to assert that people who
complain about Haskell's difficulty are too lazy and aren't really
interested in a better solution. Maybe they just don't want to have to
take graduate-level classes in
Hi,
As I am taking a break from writing code and doing laundry, here are my
thoughts.
Restating the obvious: I agree with you that it is amazing how use of the word
Monad has brought out so many people's feeling towards math.
Obligatory disclaimer: Like many people, I have learned to write
Haskell is _not_ inherently hard - any more than any other
programming language. But it is different. So right now,
Haskell is hard only because we need more
documentation that is designed to make Haskell
seem easy.
Well, I think it's harder to get a program compiled in Haskell than
in Java,
On 1/28/07, Chris Kuklewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think many of the users of Haskell forget that there are a lot of
people out there who are not career academics working with pure
mathematics day-in and day-out.
GHC seems to be developed by several people at Microsoft Research. They
On Jan 26, 2007, at 23:01 , Collin Winter wrote:
You have a PhD in computer science from Princeton, so your measure of
what's hard and what isn't in this regard is nearly worthless.
Uh, I don't have a degree, and discussions about mathy stuff like
category theory generally go flying way
On 1/26/07, Collin Winter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it incredibly insulting for you to assert that people who
complain about Haskell's difficulty are too lazy and aren't really
interested in a better solution. Maybe they just don't want to have to
take graduate-level classes in category
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:13:43 - (GMT), you wrote:
world. It also highlights some of the misconceptions that still exist and
need to be challenged, e.g. the idea that Haskell is too hard or is
impractical for real work.
Haskell _is_ hard, although I don't think it's _too_ hard, or I wouldn't
On 1/26/07, Steve Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:13:43 - (GMT), you wrote:
world. It also highlights some of the misconceptions that still exist and
need to be challenged, e.g. the idea that Haskell is too hard or is
impractical for real work.
Haskell _is_ hard,
On 1/26/07, Collin Winter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have a PhD in computer science from Princeton, so your measure of
what's hard and what isn't in this regard is nearly worthless.
I find it incredibly insulting for you to assert that people who
complain about Haskell's difficulty are too
catamorphism:
On 1/26/07, Collin Winter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have a PhD in computer science from Princeton, so your measure of
what's hard and what isn't in this regard is nearly worthless.
I find it incredibly insulting for you to assert that people who
complain about Haskell's
22 matches
Mail list logo
