Daniel Carrera wrote: > Depends on what you mean by "quick" and "small". Do you mean that the > program should execute fast and have a small memmory foot-print?
I was referring to Robin's mentioning space/time usage, so yes, that's what I meant. > >To write interactive Haskell code well, you have to understand > >higher order functions. > > That's scary, that you need advanced knowledge just to do IO. Actually not. You need advanced knowledge to *avoid* doing IO. (If higher order functions like map, fold count as advanced.) A good, readable, maintainable Haskell program is almost completely pure and does very little IO. Of course you can write an IO-heavy program in the same style you'd use in C, but it would be exactly as ugly. > >Unless you want to > >teach people to program as they would do in Basic, that is. > > I don't know what you mean by that. You will soon. Once you get used to composing functions instead of sequencing actions, you'll appreciate the difference. Udo. -- Disco is to music what Etch-A-Sketch is to art.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
