On 6 Jan 2008, at 2:13 AM, Achim Schneider wrote:
Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4 Jan 2008, at 2:00 AM, Nicholls, Mark wrote:
You may be right...but learning is not an atomic thing....wherever I
start I will get strange things happening.
The best place to start learning Haskell is with the simplest type
features, not the most complicated. And it's the simplest features
that are most unlike OO.
Yes, Haskell will be `strange'. But if you think you're `the
intersection' between Haskell and OO, you'll think things are
familiar, and you'll be surprised when they turn out to be
different. I'd concentrate on watching out for differences --- but
then I can't imagine how finding `familiar' ideas would help.
just a sec...
things like
<C++ translated into Haskell>
come to mind.
But then this has more to do with Monads than with classes. IO, in
particular, and GL and GLUT, which are state machines and
thus predestined for OOP.
Your example is very unintuitive and unidiomatic Haskell. The
reference to GL makes me think this is for a `low-level' binding to
an imperative library, no? Those are scarcely good places to learn
Haskell.
jcc
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
