> This is at odds with the notion, popular on this list and other haskell forums, that pure functional programming is the future.
Perhaps a nit-pick, but I don't think we're talking about *pure* functional programming. I think we're talking about a mixture of functional and imperative programming in a functional language. Haskell offers a cleaner separation between the two than, say, Scheme or ML. The idea of pure functional programming (no explicit IO) for getting real things done is much more of a lunatic fringe vision, and I'm not sure there are many of us left pursuing that vision. - Conal On Dec 11, 2007 9:34 AM, Tim Newsham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I haven't been following this thread closely, but would it be rude to > suggest > > that someone who doesn't want to put the effort into learning the > (admittedly > > difficult) concepts that Haskell embodies shouldn't be using the > language? > > Haskell was never intended to be The Next Big Popular Language. It was > > intended to be a purely functional language for people who want to use > purely > > functional languages and who are willing to learn new concepts if it > enables > > them to program in that style. > > This is at odds with the notion, popular on this list and other > haskell forums, that pure functional programming is the future. > > Why is it that every time the topic of teaching basic concepts in > an easier way comes up there are always two or three replies that > say "should we bother? lets filter out the idiots?" These are > pointless and counterproductive. Whether or not you like the idea > of lesser entities sullying your private, pure, functional programming > language, there are going to be a lot more people learning this > language, and there will be people trying to make it easier for them > to learn it. > > > whatever. That said, of course we should strive to have better teaching > > materials, but there are a number of good IO/monad tutorials on the web. > [...] > > because it enables us to write programs more effectively (in many cases, > at > > least) than we can in other languages, but the learning curve is steep > -- > > there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. > > Many of the best resources for learning Haskell are still academic > papers published by language researchers. We've still got a long > long way to go... Sure there's no shortcut to learning difficult > concepts, but right now its more of a nature hike than a freeway... > > > Mike > > Tim Newsham > http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/ <http://www.thenewsh.com/%7Enewsham/> > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe