On Feb 17, 2008 7:31 PM, SJS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > begin quoting David Brown as of Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 06:53:11PM -0800: > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 06:36:41PM -0800, SJS wrote: > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/fa.haskell/msg/b1e0673a38ce3995? > > > > > >An article by a guy who really wanted to make Haskell work, but he's > > >having some difficulties, and so he offers up some criticism of Haskell. > > > > I don't get the impression he's really gotten that far with Haskell. > > He comes right out and says it's only been a couple of weeks. > > How much time does it take to become minimally proficient in the > language? If two weeks of continuous study and experimentation can't > get someone past the point of "OMG this sucks" and within sight of the > promised land, then there's a problem somewhere.
If the language is sufficiently different, maybe several weeks. Maybe a few months. It's a different way of thinking so it's going to take time. Expect the shorter learning curve when the new language is close in design to something you already know. > > However, I think it is more a sign of someone writing code who doesn't know > > the language very well. Haskell is a very hard language to learn, and in > > most languages you tend to write pretty bad code when you don't know the > > language. > > If it's THAT hard of a language to learn, then it's doomed to utter failure. For better or for worse, you are probably right. -Chuck -- http://cobra-language.com/ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
