On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Ertugrul Soeylemez <e...@ertes.de> wrote:
> Alex Kropivny <alex.kropi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Could something like code abstraction be done instead? > > > > Haskell lends itself to solving problems in really generic, high level > > ways that reveal a LOT about the underlying problem structure. Through > > some combination of descriptive data types, generic type classes, and > > generic helper functions... You get an extremely clear problem > > description. > > > > Example: https://github.com/amtal/snippets/blob/master/Key.hs (Haskell) > > versus http://siyobik.info/index.php?module=pastebin&id=543 (C++) > > > > Clarity is a lot harder to score for, so you'd probably need to score > > things via votes. (Unless there's a way to measure how > > "generic"/high-level code is?) Such a site would fill a very nice > > role, that the programming language shootout definitely does not fill. > > > > Currently the only way to figure out what "good" Haskell code looks > > like is to browse lots of blogs, and dig through hackage until you > > find beautifully written packages. > > I really like this idea. New concepts in Haskell come up from time to > time. Now if there was a competition for code quality and good ideas, > they may become more frequent. > This could also go for problems, where you have to use some specific feature or extension, like scoped type variables, type families/functional dependencies, or even just typeclasses... (Remember, there was a deep list concatenation problem thread some days ago.) -- Markus Läll
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
