On 2016-02-18 at 04:02:24 +0100, Eric Seidel wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016, at 08:09, Christopher Allen wrote: >> I have tried a beginner's Prelude with people. I don't have a lot of data >> because it was clearly a failure early on so I bailed them out into the >> usual thing. It's just not worth it and it deprives them of the >> preparedness to go write real Haskell code. That's not something I'm >> willing to give up just so I can teach _less_. > > Chris, have you written about your experiences teaching with a > beginner's Prelude? I'd be quite interested to read about it, as (1) it > seems like a natural thing to do and (2) the Racket folks seem to have > had good success with their staged teaching languages. > > In particular, I'm curious if your experience is in the context of > teaching people with no experience programming at all, vs programming > experience but no Haskell (or generally FP) experience. The Racket "How > to Design Programs" curriculum seems very much geared towards absolute > beginners, and that could be a relevant distinction.
Btw, IMHO it's also interesting to distinguish between teaching functional programming vs teaching Haskell. I've noticed that in the former case, instructors would often prefer a radically slimmed down standard-library and conceal some of Haskell's language features not pertinent to their FP curriculum (e.g. typeclasses or record syntax). -- _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
