Was there any consensus on how to move forward on this? I just found another example of 8.0 type which is not beginner friendly:
bash-3.2$ ghci GHCi, version 8.0.0.20160204: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help Prelude> True True it :: Bool Prelude> True || undefined True *it :: ?callStack::GHC.Stack.Types.CallStack => Bool* On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:56 PM Ericson, John <john_eric...@brown.edu> wrote: > I dispute your second point a bit: I consider any Prelude changes a > standard library change than a language change, not withstanding the fact > the Prelude is imported by default. Any beginner-language library can still > be imported from normal code. Likewise a "hygienic copy paste" would simply > import the beginner prelude qualified and mangle identifiers as necessary. > > I'm inclined to think the Racket way is the only true solution here. > > John > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Manuel M T Chakravarty < > c...@justtesting.org> wrote: > >> 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 —to avoid overloading— that are no longer valid in the full Prelude.)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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
