I'm afraid this kind of 5-minute talk makes sense only if you already know
a lot about monads or are a computer scientist; not if you're a programmer
who wants to learn a new language. For instance, this statement starts
making sense only if you've seen a lot of examples of monads (maybe even
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bartosz Milewski
bart...@fpcomplete.com wrote:
I'm afraid this kind of 5-minute talk makes sense only if you already know a
lot about monads or are a computer scientist; not if you're a programmer who
wants to learn a new language. For instance, this statement
I found some useful reference code on the Haskell Wiki and constructed my own
memoized Fibonacci function using the MemoTrie library, which, fortunately, is
builtin with Haskell Platform and therefore does not require the tutorial
reader to install additional code.
The new version of the
The latest Haskell Platform is 2012.2.0.0
You are apparently running a much older version.
#!c:/Program Files/Haskell Platform/2010.2.0.0/bin/ runhaskell
--
--
Regards,
KC
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Tillmann Rendel
ren...@informatik.uni-marburg.de wrote:
Hi,
Kristopher Micinski wrote:
Everyone in the Haskell cafe probably has a secret dream to give the
best five minute monad talk.
(1) Most programming languages support side effects. There are
Hi,
Kristopher Micinski wrote:
Everyone in the Haskell cafe probably has a secret dream to give the
best five minute monad talk.
(1) Most programming languages support side effects. There are different
kinds of side effects such as accessing mutable variables, reading
files, running in
Hi Tillmann. Wow. Lovely and spot on! And I almost never hear monad
explanations without wincing. Thanks for sharing. -- Conal
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Tillmann Rendel
ren...@informatik.uni-marburg.de wrote:
Hi,
Kristopher Micinski wrote:
Everyone in the Haskell cafe probably has
Agreed. Great. I still contend that it would be cool to get this to
be a real thing at something like the Haskell workshop, I think
hearing the different perspectives would be an interesting insight
into the many different ways to explain monads. But I suppose the way
to start would be to put
Agreed. Great. I still contend that it would be cool to get this to
be a real thing at something like the Haskell workshop, I think
hearing the different perspectives would be an interesting insight
into the many different ways to explain monads. But I suppose the way
to start would be to put
Mind if I join you in praising this?
On Sep 17, 2012, at 12:06 AM, Kristopher Micinski krismicin...@gmail.com
wrote:
Agreed. Great. I still contend that it would be cool to get this to
be a real thing at something like the Haskell workshop, I think
hearing the different perspectives would
Joel Burget, Fri 2012-09-14 @ 19:08:29-0700:
I find the Monad instance for Maybe and Either very useful. You can do
things like the following (which technically only uses the Applicative
instance):
Prelude Control.Applicative (*3) $ (+2) $ Just 1
Just 9
Prelude Control.Applicative (*3) $
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Andrew Pennebaker
andrew.penneba...@gmail.com wrote:
Challenge: get someone to have a competition at one of the conferences
where students all give their
best five minute monad talk and try to find the most comprehensible one!
Challenge accepted.
Great!
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Joel Burget joelbur...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Also, Maybe and Either are not implemented as monads. They are defined
using `data` like you suggest:
data Maybe a = Nothing | Just a
data Either a b = Left a | Right b
That's not my point, or my objection.
Kris,
Sorry for the confusion, I wasn't directly addressing your post. I was trying
to correct what I perceived as a misconception in the last paragraph of
Andrew's message, beginning with Given that….
- Joel
On Saturday, September 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Kristopher Micinski wrote:
On Fri,
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
A summary of the changes I've included so far:
[...]
Another comment:
As a declarative language, Haskell manipulates expressions, eventually
reducing expressions to values.
Huh? In what sense do declarative languages manipulate
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Andrew Pennebaker
andrew.penneba...@gmail.com wrote:
Challenge: get someone to have a competition at one of the conferences
where students all give their
best five minute monad talk and try to find the most comprehensible one!
Challenge accepted
I've gotten mixed feedback from Reddit for my tutorial. It provides an
overview of how functional and declarative programming in Haskell empower
baddies, increasing the accuracy and efficiency of their atomic
superweapons. What do you guys think of my tutorial, Haskell for the Evil
Genius
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:13:15PM -0400, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
I've gotten mixed feedback from Reddit for my tutorial. It provides an
overview of how functional and declarative programming in Haskell empower
baddies, increasing the accuracy and efficiency of their atomic
superweapons. What
Hi Andrew,
To save others the search, here's the/a reddit URL:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/related/nhnyd/nfa_in_a_single_line_of_haskell/.
The terribly misleading/mistaken remarks on fib memoization are still in
your post. As hammar commented on reddit commenter, you're not memoizing in
A summary of the changes I've included so far:
Under Declarative, you aren't creating a named expression, 2 + 2, really.
You are redefining (+).
Noted and reflected in the new version.
Under Lazy, your example of binding fib 30 is not a good example of
memoization. With memoization you
On 12-09-14 05:18 PM, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
One thing I want to double check is that Haskell does, in fact,
automatically memoize all pure function calls. Is this true?
A simple back-of-envelope calculation that immediately raises doubts:
2 seconds on a 2 GHz computer is 4x10^9 clock
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 05:18:24PM -0400, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
A summary of the changes I've included so far:
Under Declarative, you aren't creating a named expression, 2 + 2, really.
You are redefining (+).
Noted and reflected in the new version.
It may not be obvious to readers when
Experiment #4:
fib :: Int - Int
fib n = mem !! n
mem :: [Int]
mem = map aux [0..]
-- remark: even [Int] is not a very efficient data structure for this
aux 0 = 0
aux 1 = 1
aux n = mem!!(n-1) + mem!!(n-2)
main :: IO ()
main = mapM_ (print . fib) (replicate 10 30)
Question: How
Well, to make it short, I liked it!
As suggestions, little things like first class functions and partial
application can be easily introduced.
For example the line:
map (+1) [1..10]
contains these concepts and it very short and expressive.
On the story side, why not introducing a character? This
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Andrew Pennebaker
andrew.penneba...@gmail.com wrote:
A summary of the changes I've included so far:
Noted and reflected... I'm trying to convey to an audience largely
composed of Java and C++ fanatics how Haskell records are much better than
OOP, how GADTs
But, Haskell records aren't better than OOP.
I am not trying to be controversial here -- Haskell records would
naturally implement prototype-based OOP, like JavaScript uses, if they
(Haskell records) weren't so useless. This is basically why lenses were
designed (i.e., to make consistent
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Andrew Pennebaker
andrew.penneba...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip..]
Does anyone know of a brief introductory Haskell tutorial that engages
monads? LYAH covers monads, but it does so after a few chapters of simpler,
pure function Haskell coding. I know of some brief
Everyone in the Haskell cafe probably has a secret dream to give the
best five minute monad talk. Challenge: get someone to have a
competition at one of the conferences where students all give their
best five minute monad talk and try to find the most comprehensible
one!
Haha, maybe
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Andrew Pennebaker
andrew.penneba...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that Maybe and Either don't modify state, nor do they communicate
with outside interfaces, nor do they specify computation ordering, I don't
understand why they're implemented as monads. Why not a
I find the Monad instance for Maybe and Either very useful. You can do things
like the following (which technically only uses the Applicative instance):
Prelude Control.Applicative (*3) $ (+2) $ Just 1
Just 9
Prelude Control.Applicative (*3) $ (+2) $ Nothing
Nothing
Prelude Control.Applicative
Challenge: get someone to have a competition at one of the conferences
where students all give their
best five minute monad talk and try to find the most comprehensible one!
Challenge accepted http://www.yellosoft.us/5min/.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing
31 matches
Mail list logo
