On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Casey Basichis <caseybasic...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I just ordered Mathsemantics for a hefty $2.10. > > Your article's were an enjoyable read and very informative. I'll dig more > into you blog tonight. > > I've read the Great Good book, Haskell school of music, and I'm working my > way through Real World Haskell. I've also read countless blog articles on > Haskell. > > With a great deal read and understood about Haskell I have no confidence > that I can make anything in it at all. > > Kurt Vonnegut retyped James Joyce's work to feel a great novel under his > fingers before writing his own. > > Webster knew English better than Shakespeare. Shakespeare was a master > of creation. > > To be able to create from a small core and then extend those intuitions > with knowledge over time is to me far more effective than mastering > language and then attempting creation. > > While not rigorous, getting hands on with high level practical libraries > and working by example would have built my intuitions far faster than all > of the countless reading and toy examples I've done. The problem is, for > that approach, there isn't any material for a book or insightful blog post > to be written. Mimetics are mundane and unnecessary to those in the know. > The teachers seem to be unaware of how their own intuitions were formed. > > While learning the fundamentals my mind struggles to imagine how these > basic concepts play into the larger picture - how would they use foldr to > build persistent? I don't have real answers to those questions but it's a > constant distraction. > > I am certain that sitting down with a few simple examples of how to use a > library like Persistent, without any concern as to how it works, will > surely take me from a useless Haskeller to being able to make useful tools > that I can use in my career as a composer. > > In learning Do notation the books took me through three ways of expressing > the same thing before arriving at the sugary syntax that I will likely use > for the next ten projects. I don't see that as building a core towards > creation, but rather the elevation of a fetishy obsession with language. > Children learn the most critical words before grammar - only in language > studies does grammar come before vocabulary. > > The question is what is the core knowledge that facilitates creation? > > That core is a mutating form. It works from the high level downward as it > needs to, not from the low level upward because it is thought that it > should. There are thousands of articles on how to use raw C++ pointers. > One in the know knows to use smart pointers because they facilitate > creation. > > I constantly read authors of blog posts say things like "I wish I had > learned monad transformers sooner." What is a rigorous way to prioritize > learning the full scope of Haskell so that creative intuition is maximized? > How can I know that Arrows will be generally more effective than > Category-Extras for creating things? > > If data mining Hackage to find the practical reality of how Haskell is > actually being used by people who are creating complete and useful things > is not an effective way to learn, what approach is better? > > Best, > Casey > > Lets say you teach the piano and two prospective students come to you. A with much passion wants to play like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L0Rncqx1yQ B with more focus than passion, has this ideal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu06WnXlPCY Who do you think/feel would be more likely to succeed? Who would you prefer to teach?
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
