On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 18:15 +0100, John Lato wrote: >> Are you advocating introducing existential types to beginning >> Haskellers? I think something with the scary name > > Invalid argument. > >> "existential >> quantification" would greatly increase the head'splodin' on the >> learnin' slope. > > Invalid argument. Head explosion is the *goal* of teaching Haskell.
Is it? I would certainly prefer my students to say "This is obvious. Why would things work in any other way?" They don't, but I can dream. >> Certainly there's a place for them, but I wouldn't >> want to see new Haskell programmers habitually approach problems with >> a "first create a type class, then make an existential wrapper" >> mentality. > > Of course not. That's just translating OO into Haskell. Personally, I > would avoid comparing Haskell to other language at all (SOE I believe > takes this approach). > > jcc I find such comparisons pretty useful. Yours, Alexey Romanov _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
