Two notable differences between Racket and the situation in Haskell is that (1) Racket has a full blown IDE to support the staged languages and (2) AFIK any Racket program in a simpler language is still a valid Racket program in a more advanced language. (The latter wouldn’t be the case with, e.g., a Prelude omitting type classes as you need to introduce new names —to avoid overloading— that are no longer valid in the full Prelude.)
Manuel > Eric Seidel <e...@seidel.io>: > > 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. > > Thanks! > Eric > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
