On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 15:43, Edward Kmett wrote:
I've had a fairly easy time of hiring Haskell programmers.
Does this mean your company actively uses Haskell in projects? Would you be
willing/able to describe this work in more detail for the curious?
Sean
On 3 Jul 2010, at 03:39, Don Stewart wrote:
ivan.miljenovic:
Hmm, interesting. Applicative and Traversable are two classes I've never
used and don't really understand the purpose of. I have no idea what
hsc2hs is. I keep hearing finger trees mentioned, but only in connection
to papers
On 2 July 2010 11:56, JP Moresmau jpmores...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Duncan Coutts dun...@well-typed.com
wrote:
When we are done we intend to write up a blog post more details, e.g.
numbers and the range/distribution of experience among candidates. I
hope that will
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 09:43 -0400, Edward Kmett wrote:
* How many applications did you get?
I tend to actively recruit rather than throw open the floodgates.
We did that initially. We are now very pleased that we switched track to
openly advertising. We've had many excellent people
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 20:34 +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
I'm starting to see job adverts mentioning Haskell as a nice to have,
and even in some cases as a technology to work with.
However right now I'm looking at it from the other side. Suppose
someone wants to hire a Haskell developer or
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Duncan Coutts dun...@well-typed.comwrote:
When we are done we intend to write up a blog post more details, e.g.
numbers and the range/distribution of experience among candidates. I
hope that will be useful to people who are interested in hiring Haskell
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Paul Johnson p...@cogito.org.uk wrote:
I'm starting to see job adverts mentioning Haskell as a nice to have, and
even in some cases as a technology to work with.
However right now I'm looking at it from the other side. Suppose someone
wants to hire a Haskell
A better test might be if they really understood Applicative and
Traversable, or if they knew how to use hsc2hs; Talk about unboxing and when
to apply strictness annotations, finger trees, stream fusion, purely
functional data structures or ways to implement memoization in a purely
functional
Edward Kmett wrote:
Knowledge of Haskell means very different things to different
people. I'd be somewhat leery of blindly hiring someone based on their
ability to answer a couple of pop Haskell quiz questions.
A better test might be if they really understood Applicative and
Traversable, or
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 06:03:31PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Edward Kmett wrote:
Knowledge of Haskell means very different things to different
people. I'd be somewhat leery of blindly hiring someone based on
their ability to answer a couple of pop Haskell quiz questions.
A better test
Maybe the codebase he's hiring for makes heavy use of Applicative,
Traversable, unboxing etc.
-deech
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Edward Kmett wrote:
Knowledge of Haskell means very different things to different people.
I'd be somewhat
On 02/07/10 14:43, Edward Kmett wrote:
Knowledge of Haskell means very different things to different
people. I'd be somewhat leery of blindly hiring someone based on their
ability to answer a couple of pop Haskell quiz questions.
Fair enough, and I should probably have put a smiley in
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Hmm, interesting. Applicative and Traversable are two classes I've never
used and don't really understand the purpose of.
Their main purpose is to avoid the list bias so prevalent from the
Lispish side of FP. Namely, there are many different kinds of
collections which
aditya siram aditya.si...@gmail.com writes:
Maybe the codebase he's hiring for makes heavy use of Applicative,
Traversable, unboxing etc.
Nah, I talked to him about it last night (because like Andrew I've never
really used either of those classes, though I do know what hsc2hs is,
just never
andrewcoppin:
Edward Kmett wrote:
Knowledge of Haskell means very different things to different
people. I'd be somewhat leery of blindly hiring someone based on their
ability to answer a couple of pop Haskell quiz questions.
A better test might be if they really understood Applicative
Don Stewart d...@galois.com writes:
andrewcoppin:
Edward Kmett wrote:
Knowledge of Haskell means very different things to different
people. I'd be somewhat leery of blindly hiring someone based on their
ability to answer a couple of pop Haskell quiz questions.
A better test might be if
ivan.miljenovic:
Hmm, interesting. Applicative and Traversable are two classes I've never
used and don't really understand the purpose of. I have no idea what
hsc2hs is. I keep hearing finger trees mentioned, but only in connection
to papers that I can't access. So I guess that means
On Jul 2, 2010, at 7:08 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
Knowing about something /= knowing how to use it. I own and have read
RWH, but I've never had to use hsc2hs, or Applicative, etc.
Applicative is nice. I had to Google for hsc2hs. This is what I get
for learning Haskell from the
It depends on the type of a position.
If it is a one-shot/contract job then you are looking for the concrete
skillset/expertise, i.e. Haskell.
For relatively longterm or permanent positions I think it is better to give
a priority to smart and getting things done type of persons rather than
That's not really true. We train people at Galois in Haskell, on the job.
Often they have prior FP experience, but not always.
aditya.siram:
And learning (fun) should be an important aspect of the position.
Whatever FP you're coming from, I don't think you can pick up Haskell
on the job.
Right, but I assume you have local experts who are willing to teach on
site. In most companies I've worked for there is minimal training.
Haskell really needs someone who can patiently walk alongside.
I'm picturing a non-Haskell developer getting thrown into the deep
end. Now that I think about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/1/10 13:41 , aditya siram wrote:
I'm picturing a non-Haskell developer getting thrown into the deep
end. Now that I think about it I think that's part of why companies
choose Java/C# etc. - they can just let Google train their people.
...and
I'm starting to see job adverts mentioning Haskell as a nice to have,
and even in some cases as a technology to work with.
However right now I'm looking at it from the other side. Suppose
someone wants to hire a Haskell developer or three. How easy is this?
I'd appreciate replies from
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Paul Johnson p...@cogito.org.uk wrote:
I'm starting to see job adverts mentioning Haskell as a nice to have, and
even in some cases as a technology to work with.
However right now I'm looking at it from the other side. Suppose someone
wants to hire a Haskell
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Paul Johnson p...@cogito.org.uk wrote:
I'm starting to see job adverts mentioning Haskell as a nice to have, and
even in some cases as a technology to work with.
However right now I'm looking at it from the other side. Suppose someone
wants to hire a Haskell
25 matches
Mail list logo
