I was thinking the same thing. If I remember correctly, RWH does a parser in an applicative style, but I'll have to look when I get home to be sure. If so, then maybe we could try doing the same thing in a monadic style, for comparison and contrast purposes.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Jeff Heard <[email protected]>wrote: > Come to think of it, I've never seen an applicative tutorial of > Parsec, only a monadic one. Does such a beast exist, and if so, maybe > we could merge the two together, work the same example in both, and > thus help the programmer make the shift from monadic to applicative, > from order of parsing to describing the grammar. > > -- Jeff > > 2009/3/12 Conal Elliott <[email protected]>: > > Thank you Bob! I'll throw in another 2 cents: > > > > Yes, *one* aspect of Haskell is that it's a power tool for imperative > > programming -- a clever way to keep plugging away at the old sequential > von > > Neumann paradigm. C++++. > > > > I'd rather we strongly encourage Haskell-newbies toward shifting out of > the > > imperative paradigm to thinking and programming *functionally*. It's a > big > > shift, to make, and imperative-Haskell is a relatively easy substitute. > > > > - Conal > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Thomas Davie <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> On 12 Mar 2009, at 15:16, Andrew Wagner wrote: > >> > >>> Can you expand on this a bit? I'm curious why you think this. > >> > >> For two reasons: > >> > >> Firstly, I often find that people use the Monadic interface when one of > >> the less powerful ones is both powerful enough and more convenient, > parsec > >> is a wonderful example of this. When the applicative instance is used > >> instead of the monadic one, programs rapidly become more readable, > because > >> they stop describing the order in which things should be parsed, and > start > >> describing the grammar of the language being parsed instead. > >> > >> Secondly, It seems relatively common now for beginners to be told about > >> the IO monad, and start writing imperative code in it, and thinking that > >> this is what Haskell programming is. I have no problem with people > writing > >> imperative code in Haskell, it's an excellent imperative language. > However, > >> beginners seeing this, and picking it up is usually counter productive – > >> they never learn how to write things in a functional way, and miss out > on > >> most of the benefits of doing so. > >> > >> Hope that clarifies what I meant :) > >> > >> Bob_______________________________________________ > >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
