Send Beginners mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Beginners digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: a problem with maps (aditya siram)
2. minimal Haskell concepts subset (Davi Santos)
3. Re: minimal Haskell concepts subset (Thomas)
4. Re: minimal Haskell concepts subset (Davi Santos)
5. Re: minimal Haskell concepts subset (Davi Santos)
6. Re: minimal Haskell concepts subset (Julian Porter)
7. Re: minimal Haskell concepts subset (Stephen Tetley)
8. Re: minimal Haskell concepts subset (Thomas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:48:14 -0500
From: aditya siram <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Haskell-beginners] a problem with maps
To: Brent Yorgey <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID:
<cajrreyhpg8xg7tzkhqzjbhpsia0k9g223wrjwmio2_lf0rb...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> If I am reading your paragraph, I may look up 'perspicuously' and find
> it in the dictionary. ?I have to learn about this word to understand
> your paragraph? ?You need three extra syllables to express what could
> be expressed much more clearly as: 'So, you need two lines of extra
> code to express what could be expressed much more clearly as:'.
Reminds me of an anecdote on George Orwell's writing style I found as
part of an NPR article[1]:
A scrupulous writer, Orwell notes, will ask himself: What am I trying
to say? What words will express it? What fresh image will make it
clearer? Could I put it more shortly? Have I said anything that is
avoidably ugly? The alternative is simply "throwing your mind open and
letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct
your sentences for you ? even think your thoughts for you ? concealing
your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special
connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes
clear."
-deech
[1] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6124822
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:05:56 -0300
From: Davi Santos <[email protected]>
Subject: [Haskell-beginners] minimal Haskell concepts subset
To: [email protected]
Message-ID:
<canwsst_cftlp7v5ch-uq3sppckr7kpjaxjaow+nssawm+c0...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello,
which would be the minimal Haskell concepts subset
equivalent to a Turing-complete high level language?
I bet there would be no monads and type classes in the subset.
Please, see that I am not an idealist nor want to use the acclaimed very
powerful abstraction capabilities of Haskell.
I just need to know how much is strictly needed, even if a real Haskeller or
other person couldn't understand my code.
Davi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20110725/2ab4ea43/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:16:47 +0200
From: Thomas <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Haskell-beginners] minimal Haskell concepts subset
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi Davi!
On 25.07.2011 22:05, Davi Santos wrote:
> Hello,
> which would be the minimal Haskell concepts subset
> equivalent to a Turing-complete high level language?
> I bet there would be no monads and type classes in the subset.
You'd need very little for Turing completeness. But what constitutes a
"high level language"?
Regards,
Thomas
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:17:58 -0300
From: Davi Santos <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Haskell-beginners] minimal Haskell concepts subset
To: [email protected]
Message-ID:
<CANWsST80vceeM_nm52jV2KjkBy6fcOikOimeHob0=sozoyv...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Matt,
the first and best I found was http://learnyouahaskell.com/chapters.
The point is that I spent too much time (almost a year) learning, and I am
not -productive- yet.
Productive in the sense of time writing and debugging, not in the sense of
number of characters written.
Nothing in particular, it just was too much time.
My background is, in order of experience:
Java, C++, Delphi, Python, C#, Bash, Scala, Basic, Pascal and maybe others I
forgot.
The first two I really know and could learn the best practices.
The rest I know only the minimal concepts but could do something important
already.
Haskell has been harder than Basic, my first programming language.
When I was 13-year old, somebody told me: "each line is an order the
computer follows in sequence".
That was enough intuitive to me.
After that I was taught: for, goto, if, print and input.
The last concepts and harder were the while and the subroutines.
Maybe I am get messy with the lots of alternatives to do a same thing in
Haskell.
After months in Java I started the habit of always search for the best
practices - and I found them.
Ok, it is long enough email. Maybe I have some kind of non-haskell-related
addiction.
Davi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20110725/1fa81923/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:29:15 -0300
From: Davi Santos <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Haskell-beginners] minimal Haskell concepts subset
To: [email protected]
Message-ID:
<canwsst-4ur2dx34v02albscgok2vq86tx8hrhxf3wpecwga...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
It is subjective, I know.
I used the term "high level language" to show that abstraction is
interesting despite my arguing against too much abstraction.
I remembered one crucial question:
Why do we use so much abstraction and there are always somebody recommending
to read the standard library sources?
Davi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20110725/a9f9d93a/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:11:27 +0100
From: Julian Porter <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Haskell-beginners] minimal Haskell concepts subset
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
But a good OO program is very loosely coupled and doesn't really behave like a
series of statements one after the other. Particularly as, if you're making
full use of polymorphism, much of the time you simply can't tell from looking
at the code precisely what happens inside a particular method call, only that
it fulfils a particular contract. Which is actually not that dissimilar to
what happen in FP . . .
Julian Porter
[email protected]
http://www.porternet.org
On 25 Jul 2011, at 22:17, Davi Santos wrote:
> Hi Matt,
> the first and best I found was http://learnyouahaskell.com/chapters.
> The point is that I spent too much time (almost a year) learning, and I am
> not -productive- yet.
> Productive in the sense of time writing and debugging, not in the sense of
> number of characters written.
>
> Nothing in particular, it just was too much time.
> My background is, in order of experience:
> Java, C++, Delphi, Python, C#, Bash, Scala, Basic, Pascal and maybe others I
> forgot.
> The first two I really know and could learn the best practices.
> The rest I know only the minimal concepts but could do something important
> already.
>
> Haskell has been harder than Basic, my first programming language.
> When I was 13-year old, somebody told me: "each line is an order the computer
> follows in sequence".
> That was enough intuitive to me.
> After that I was taught: for, goto, if, print and input.
> The last concepts and harder were the while and the subroutines.
>
> Maybe I am get messy with the lots of alternatives to do a same thing in
> Haskell.
> After months in Java I started the habit of always search for the best
> practices - and I found them.
>
>
> Ok, it is long enough email. Maybe I have some kind of non-haskell-related
> addiction.
>
>
> Davi
> _______________________________________________
> Beginners mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20110725/3901d22c/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:20:02 +0100
From: Stephen Tetley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Haskell-beginners] minimal Haskell concepts subset
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID:
<CAB2TPRBOe83SPkTAkaDawnJi89tdjRdH4r17k9ortw9=w4+...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
There are a number of languages called "Mini Haskell" that will come
up if you're lucky in a web search.
One from Konstantin L?ufer includes type classes, whereas the others
seem to be just small, lazy functional languages.
I think the Haskell history paper presented at HOPL considers type
classes to be the defining feature or Haskell.
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:38:20 +0200
From: Thomas <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Haskell-beginners] minimal Haskell concepts subset
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi Davi,
maybe you'll find "Programming in Haskell" by Graham Hutton an
interesting read. It is - I think - pretty lightweight in the sense that
it doesn't overload you with concepts, and pretty complete in the sense
that it explains well all that it explains. (There are no monads, for
example, IIRC.)
The only critique I'd make eventually is that it doesn't say much about
how to connect Haskell to the "outside world". That bothered me a lot
initially, but it's not too much of an issue for me any more. I just
solve my problem without caring for the surroundings and then plug it
into some "real world wrapper". Won't work for all problems, I guess,
but has worked very well for me so far.
Caveat emptor: I consider myself still a beginner in Haskell.
Regards,
Thomas
On 25.07.2011 23:29, Davi Santos wrote:
> It is subjective, I know.
> I used the term "high level language" to show that abstraction is
> interesting despite my arguing against too much abstraction.
>
> I remembered one crucial question:
> Why do we use so much abstraction and there are always somebody recommending
> to read the standard library sources?
>
> Davi
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Beginners mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
End of Beginners Digest, Vol 37, Issue 58
*****************************************
