On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:53:42 PM UTC+1, Janis Voigtländer wrote: > > So the definition of List might look like: > > type List a > = Nil > | Cons a (List a) > > That’s exactly how the definition of List would look like if it didn’t > have a native implementation. > > So it seems you already know everything. > :-) Sweet. 20 years ago I was a CS undergrad and they made us learn ML. I did my final year project in Moscow ML (a compiler) and my masters project in OCaml (an AI pattern matching thing). I remember at the time saying "it will be 20 years before this stuff becomes mainstream". Well, I think ocaml and haskell have made some good progress in that time. I haven't touched it though for 20 years, so its taking a while to figure things out again.
One of the reasons I found it so hard to learn javascript is that I could not find a readable book on the subject. I definitely think the Elm docs need a lot of work because they leave a lot of gaps. Perhaps the upcoming "Elm in Action" book will be comprehensive in its coverage: https://www.manning.com/books/elm-in-action -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
