This should not be the case. The amount of work is the same
regardless and the issues seem to be with _timing_. Passing in trace
that writes to the screen with a lock sort of slows things down.
I encourage you to actually build the code and see it for yourself.
Thanks, Joel
On Dec
Neil Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would have actually said Hugs, and especially the Windows front end
WinHugs was a lot more suitable for beginners than GHC, but the wiki
page very much gives the other impression.
Which page are you referring to? I went to look, but couldn't find
any
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:33:12AM +, Joel Reymont wrote:
My guess is that without tweaks the threads allocate more, which
increases the pressure on GC. Try to analyze the GC stats with and
without tweaks.
This should not be the case. The amount of work is the same
regardless and the
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Robin Green wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
Starting with IO in Haskell is like starting LaTeX with rotating text and
making it colorful.
Not at all!
Indeed IO _is_ complicated regardless of whether it is
modelled by Monads in Haskell or differently in other
Robin Green wrote:
Whilst localising IO to a small part of the program is generally a good
idea, beginners should not be scared off by the thought that IO in
Haskell is so hard it has to be covered on page 94. This is not the
case. It should be introduced on page 1.
As a newbie... I'll agree
Hi all,
I'm a Haskell newbie and I don't really understand how Haskell deals
with functions that really must have side-effects. Like a rand()
function or getLine().
I know this has something to do with monads, but I don't really
understand monads yet. Is there someone who might explain this
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Hi all,
I'm a Haskell newbie and I don't really understand how Haskell deals
with functions that really must have side-effects. Like a rand()
function or getLine().
I know this has something to do with monads, but I don't really
understand
Robin Green wrote:
If people want Haskell to be treated as a practical language, not just
something for doing academic teaching and research with, it should be
taught as a practical language - which means that things like IO and
space/time usage come to the forefront.
Strange, I always
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Robin Green wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
Starting with IO in Haskell is like starting LaTeX with rotating text and
making it colorful.
Not at all!
Indeed IO _is_ complicated regardless of whether it is
modelled by Monads in Haskell or differently in other
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Creighton Hogg wrote:
I agree with this wholeheartedly. When I first started
playing with Haskell, some of the tutorials made it look
like it was very difficult to do anything practical with it
because doing real input and output seemed like an advanced
topic.
The
Udo Stenzel wrote:
Strange, I always thought predictable, understandable and above all
correct code would be the primary goal, with small and quick code coming
later.
Depends on what you mean by quick and small. Do you mean that the
program should execute fast and have a small memmory
Henning Thielemann wrote:
IO is always complicated:
I have never once thought it was complicated. All I've ever needed are
print() and readLine() and those shouldn't be complicated IMO. And I
wouldn't want to wait for page 120 to learn how to do that. My programs
are not going to be useful
On 21/12/05, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I'm a Haskell newbie and I don't really understand how Haskell deals
with functions that really must have side-effects. Like a rand()
function or getLine().
I know this has something to do with monads, but I don't really
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Creighton Hogg wrote:
I agree with this wholeheartedly. When I first started
playing with Haskell, some of the tutorials made it look
like it was very difficult to do anything practical with it
because doing real
On 21/12/05, Cale Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 21/12/05, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I'm a Haskell newbie and I don't really understand how Haskell deals
with functions that really must have side-effects. Like a rand()
function or getLine().
I know this
On 21/12/05, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
IO is always complicated:
I have never once thought it was complicated. All I've ever needed are
print() and readLine() and those shouldn't be complicated IMO. And I
wouldn't want to wait for page 120 to learn
Paul Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One thing I'd consider adding is something along the lines of a section:
== So how do I write Hello, world? ==
I've gone and done it. I've perhaps been heavy handed on the original
page, so feel free to complain and/or fix it.
-k
--
If I haven't seen
Thanks for all the help. I think things are much clearer now. And this bit:
main = do putStrLn Hello, what is your name?
name - getLine
putStrLn (Hello, ++ name ++ !)
Looks quite straight forward.
I just wrote my very first IO program with Haskell:
--//--
main = do
Interesting discussion ...
I don't think it is necessary/desirable to relegate IO to `chapter 14'.
First of all, IO is handled differently in Haskell as the language
designers quite successfully resisted the temptation of impurity.
However, you don't have to understand the full implications of
--
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:48:08 +
From: Robin Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Tutorial uploaded
Beginners should start with non-monadic functions in order to later avoid
IO
On 21/12/05, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for all the help. I think things are much clearer now. And this bit:
main = do putStrLn Hello, what is your name?
name - getLine
putStrLn (Hello, ++ name ++ !)
Looks quite straight forward.
I just wrote my
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Thanks for all the help. I think things are much clearer now. And this bit:
main = do putStrLn Hello, what is your name?
name - getLine
putStrLn (Hello, ++ name ++ !)
Looks quite straight forward.
I just wrote my very
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Creighton Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Henning Thielemann wrote:
The drawback is that I saw many Haskell programs implemented with IO
read/write functions which could be easily implemented without IO, using
laziness.
Can you think of any examples of things like
Am Dienstag, 20. Dezember 2005 20:07 schrieb Sebastian Sylvan:
[...]
It's sometimes beneficial to lie a bit when starting out. Perhaps
say something like this is a simplified view of things, for all the
gory details see chapter 19.
Monadic IO is pretty darn cool, sadly that means that many
On 21.12 01:13, Pupeno wrote:
So, I install a signal handler with installHandler... and then ? how do I
prevent the program for quiting ? am I missing some kind of event loop here ?
Here is a small server program:
main = performForkWithUnixySessionStuff work
-- this is just for testing,
Am Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2005 08:18 schrieb Branimir Maksimovic:
From: Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Branimir Maksimovic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Substring replacements
Date: Tue, 20 Dec
Am Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2005 11:48 schrieb Robin Green:
[...]
If people want Haskell to be treated as a practical language, not just
something for doing academic teaching and research with, it should be
taught as a practical language - which means that things like IO and
space/time usage
Folks,
I'm surprised Hal's tutorial is so less known. I recommend (and send) it
to everybody who asks me.
I like that it starts early with some IO and mainly promotes ghc/ghci.
Hugs is a good tool as well (and I sometimes use it, too), but ghc is
definitively the flagship with better error
From: Joel Reymont [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Haskell-Cafe Cafe haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Subject: [Haskell-cafe] Killer pickler combinators (was Time leak)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:39:43 +
The original paper is at http://research.microsoft.com/ ~akenn/fun/
picklercombinators.pdf
My
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Depends on what you mean by quick and small. Do you mean that the
program should execute fast and have a small memmory foot-print?
I was referring to Robin's mentioning space/time usage, so yes, that's
what I meant.
To write interactive Haskell code well, you have to
Creighton Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Henning Thielemann wrote:
The drawback is that I saw many Haskell programs implemented with IO
read/write functions which could be easily implemented without IO, using
laziness.
Can you think of any examples of things like that? Given
that
Robin Green wrote:
I meant that for *many* but not all
practical programming tasks, IO is important.
...web applications...
Ha, wrong! A CGI script only needs getEnv, getContents and putStr, if
it has persistent state, it also needs readFile and writeFile. Each of
the five is called exactly
Am Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2005 13:31 schrieb Daniel Carrera:
Udo Stenzel wrote:
Strange, I always thought predictable, understandable and above all
correct code would be the primary goal, with small and quick code coming
later.
Depends on what you mean by quick and small. Do you mean that
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:43:42AM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Hi all,
I'm a Haskell newbie and I don't really understand how Haskell deals
with functions that really must have side-effects. Like a rand()
function or getLine().
I know this has something to do with monads, but I don't
Udo Stenzel wrote:
Unless you want to
teach people to program as they would do in Basic, that is.
I don't know what you mean by that.
You will soon. Once you get used to composing functions instead of
sequencing actions, you'll appreciate the difference.
Ah.
Yes, I do think I understand
On 12/21/05, John Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:48:08 +
From: Robin Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Tutorial uploaded
Beginners should
Daniel Fischer wrote:
P.S.: In May, there was a 'Daniel Carrera' around, too. Isn't that a strange
coincidence?
That was myself, using a different email address. I didn't get too far
with Haskell that time, but I remembered that I liked it, so I'm going
back to it a bit now. But I'm still a
Cale is a genius! This totally solves the timeouts.
Why, though? The lock is only used at the end of the unpickling. Why
does it help?
On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Cale Gibbard wrote:
By the way, when I was doing threadDelays, I meant:
trace s = withMVar lock $ const $ threadDelay 20
In
Hello Daniel,
Wednesday, December 21, 2005, 5:20:18 PM, you wrote:
BM I've finally performed test on amd64 and result is a same as on intel.
BM KMP always wins. So KMP is best suited for non indexed strings
BM and I guess should be used in library as prefered search/replace
method.
BM This
On 12/21/05, Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Dienstag, 20. Dezember 2005 20:07 schrieb Sebastian Sylvan:
[...]
It's sometimes beneficial to lie a bit when starting out. Perhaps
say something like this is a simplified view of things, for all the
gory details see chapter 19.
On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Cale Gibbard wrote:
By the way, when I was doing threadDelays, I meant:
trace s = withMVar lock $ const $ threadDelay 20
In case you didn't try that.
I'm trying 5k threads and I still get delays at times. Using thread
delay of 1, though.
./unstuff trace.dat
Am Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2005 13:15 schrieb Creighton Hogg:
[...]
Monads, I believe, can be just thought of as containers for state.
I would say that you are talking especially about the I/O monad here. A monad
as such is a rather general concept like a group is in algebra.
The important
Creighton Hogg wrote:
x is a String, getLine has type IO String. That's what I
was getting at in one of my last e-mails.
Hmm... let's see if I understand:
* getLine() has type IO String.
* The - will convert an IO String to a plain String
* So if I do x - getLine() then x has the type
On 12/21/05, Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2005 11:48 schrieb Robin Green:
[...]
If people want Haskell to be treated as a practical language, not just
something for doing academic teaching and research with, it should be
taught as a practical
Wolfgang Jeltsch writes:
- Original Message -
Am Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2005 13:15 schrieb Creighton Hogg:
[...]
Monads, I believe, can be just thought of as containers for state.
I would say that you are talking especially about the I/O monad here. A
monad
as such is a rather
Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Well, I certainly disagree there.
I'm not advocating going into a full-blown explanation of monads, just
enough to actually be able to write a real stand-alone program after
the first chapter. They only need to know that do-notation is for
sequencing computations, and (-)
Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Beginners know that too. In fact, they often think that practical
applications need far more IO than they really do! So to insinuate
even slightly that Haskell is bad at IO by avoiding it for two
thirds of a book, is really going to inforce the idea that Haskell
isn't a
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Creighton Hogg wrote:
x is a String, getLine has type IO String. That's what I
was getting at in one of my last e-mails.
Hmm... let's see if I understand:
* getLine() has type IO String.
* The - will convert an IO String to a plain String
The other thing worth noting is that by inserting a lock with a
thread delay we are fooling ourselves. While the individual pickling
time goes down, the threads are slowed down overall. Assuming that an
external source was waiting for the unpickled packet _that_ source
would get a timeout!
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 13:10 +0100, Udo Stenzel wrote:
. . .
tutorial. Before that, IO should be restricted to the EVA principle
(Eingabe, Verarbeitung, Ausgabe == Input, Processing, Output). It
was a good principle in the 60s, and it still is. Unless you want to
teach people to program
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robin Green
No, that's not what I meant at all. I meant that for *many*
but not all
practical programming tasks, IO is important. Games, GUI office
applications, database applications, web applications, etc.
Compilers
On 12/21/05, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Beginners know that too. In fact, they often think that practical
applications need far more IO than they really do! So to insinuate
even slightly that Haskell is bad at IO by avoiding it for two
thirds of a
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:47:14PM -, Bayley, Alistair wrote:
It's good to start with IO. Reading and writing files, parsing and
printing (show and read), talking to databases, GUIs, and networking are
more-or-less essential activities, and people want to know early on how
to do these
From: Daniel Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Branimir Maksimovic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED], Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
KMP is O(m) while straightforward is O(m*n).
Where m is the length of the input and n is the length of the searched-for
pattern, I think?
Yes.
Am Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2005 16:30 schrieb Daniel Carrera:
[...]
Would it be fair to say that do-blocks are imperative blocks in an otherwise
functional program?
Not really. do expressions are (normally) equivalent to expressions
containing applications of (=) and/or (). If the monad you
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Udo Stenzel wrote:
[... re pitfalls of IO for the beginner ]
Here's another one: I've heard a fellow claim, Haskell is basically
unsuitable to implement a compiler, because Haskell is weak at IO and
everything needs IO, the lexer, the preprocessor, the parser, the
From: Joel Reymont [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Branimir Maksimovic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Killer pickler combinators (was Time leak)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:51:42 +
I'm not sure I buy this. Again, this helps:
{-# NOINLINE lock #-}
lock ::
Am Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2005 16:28 schrieb David Barton:
Wolfgang Jeltsch writes:
- Original Message -
Am Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2005 13:15 schrieb Creighton Hogg:
[...]
Monads, I believe, can be just thought of as containers for state.
I would say that you are talking
Oops...meant to send this to the list, too.
--- Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:42:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Monads and pedagogy (Functions with side-effects?)
To: David Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- David Barton
Hello Steve,
Monday, December 19, 2005, 10:42:19 PM, you wrote:
SH What I'm after is something like:
SH -- (psuedo-code)
SH [(b,c,d) |
SHb - getDirectoryContents a_dir,
SHc - getDirectoryContents (a_dir ++ / ++ b),
SHd - getDirectoryContents (a_dir ++ / ++ b
--- Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Phil Wadler said it best when he said that a monad is a
*computation*.
To be honest, I'm still struggling with the monad concept myself. Oh
sure, I can read the definition and it makes sense. But I'm still
missing that aha! moment when
Hey,
The sqrt function is not doing what I want. This is what I want:
round sqrt(2)
The problem is that sqrt() returns a Floating value and round wants a
ReacFrac:
--//--
*Main round sqrt(2)
interactive:1:0:
No instances for (RealFrac (a - a), Integral (t - a1))
arising from use of
Donn Cave wrote:
Meanwhile, that fellow evidently didn't write any compiler in Haskell
at all. Better a C++ program than a Haskell program that offends you?
Oh no, he actually wrote something disgusting built mostly out of
regexes in Perl. I don't think it even works, and I don't think I
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Hey,
The sqrt function is not doing what I want. This is what I want:
round sqrt(2)
Sigh... never fails. Spend an hour trying to solve a problem, and a
minute after you write to the list you find the solution. I need
brackets around sqrt. I'm surprised though. I don't
On 12/21/05, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
round sqrt(2)
I don't understand why it dosn't work without brackets.
Function application is left associative in Haskell.
--
regards,
radu
http://rgrig.blogspot.com/
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing
On 2005-12-21 at 18:10GMT Daniel Carrera wrote:
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Hey,
The sqrt function is not doing what I want. This is what I want:
round sqrt(2)
Sigh... never fails. Spend an hour trying to solve a problem, and a
minute after you write to the list you find the solution.
Sigh... never fails. Spend an hour trying to solve a problem, and a
minute after you write to the list you find the solution. I need
brackets around sqrt. I'm surprised though. I don't understand why it
dosn't work without brackets.
because x y z parses as (x y) z, so round sqrt 2 parses
Radu Grigore wrote:
I don't understand why it dosn't work without brackets.
Function application is left associative in Haskell.
Ah. I implicitly assumed right-association (it works in Perl ;) )
Thanks.
--
/\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 06:10:56PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Hey,
The sqrt function is not doing what I want. This is what I want:
round sqrt(2)
Sigh... never fails. Spend an hour trying to solve a problem, and a
minute after you write to the list you find the
Hello Alistair,
Tuesday, December 20, 2005, 1:13:50 PM, you wrote:
BA And there's this interesting site, which demos a interpreter running in
BA your browser
it's a neat idea! I/O-stripped version of hugs can be runned in such
way
btw, i send to newcomers the following recommendations:
Hello Joel,
Tuesday, December 20, 2005, 3:38:17 PM, you wrote:
It looks like I successfully squashed my time leaks and moving my
serialization to Ptr Word8 got me as close to the metal as
possible. I'm still getting wierd results, though, and they look
like a time leak.
ORANGE ALERT:
Some example for writing a text the IO oriented way:
do putStrLn bla
replicateM 5 (putStrLn blub)
putStrLn end
whereas the lazy way is
putStr (unlines ([bla] ++ replicate 5 blub ++ [end]))
Um, maybe it's just me, but I think the first program is far
superior to the
On Dec 20, 2005, at 1:38 PM, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
can you say what it exactly means? we are not mastered in your code.
some common explanation like my program takes 6 seconds to
deserialize 50kb of data on Pentium4/3ghz will be more understabdable
That's why I posted the code at
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:35:28PM +0100, Peter Simons wrote:
Some example for writing a text the IO oriented way:
do putStrLn bla
replicateM 5 (putStrLn blub)
putStrLn end
whereas the lazy way is
putStr (unlines ([bla] ++ replicate 5 blub ++ [end]))
Um, maybe
nitpicky detail:
() - Parenthesis
{} - Braces
[] - Brackets
Sorry to be pedantic, but using the wrong terminology confuses me and
I'm sure others as well.
On 12/21/05, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Hey,
The sqrt function is not doing what I want. This is
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Peter Simons wrote:
Some example for writing a text the IO oriented way:
do putStrLn bla
replicateM 5 (putStrLn blub)
putStrLn end
whereas the lazy way is
putStr (unlines ([bla] ++ replicate 5 blub ++ [end]))
Um, maybe it's just me, but I
MG () - Parenthesis
MG {} - Braces
MG [] - Brackets
MG Sorry to be pedantic, but using the wrong terminology confuses me and
MG I'm sure others as well.
This is true for Haskell, but Daniel is correct if he is calling ()
Brackets because they are, in British English, right? (Just like '.'
is a
Am Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2005 19:02 schrieben Sie:
[...]
You (or, rather the processor) don't execute instructions to write Hello
in same way as, say, adding 2 and 2.
Exactly!
Rather, you add writing this string to a to do list and wait for a driver
to respond to an interrupt, pick up the
From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hey,
The sqrt function is not doing what I want. This is what I want:
round sqrt(2)
---
Daniel,
A lot of Haskell folks like to avoid parentheses as much as possible, and
there's a really
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Scherrer, Chad wrote:
From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hey,
The sqrt function is not doing what I want. This is what I want:
round sqrt(2)
---
Daniel,
A lot of Haskell folks like to avoid
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 18:48, Udo Stenzel wrote:
Donn Cave wrote:
Meanwhile, that fellow evidently didn't write any compiler in
Haskell at all. Better a C++ program than a Haskell program that
offends you?
Oh no, he actually wrote something disgusting built mostly out of
regexes
Well, yes. I think that part of the problem you're having is that the
threads compete very highly, and some eventually get ignored for
longer than the timeouts. The reason why the (withMVar lock $ const $
putStrLn s) helped in the first place was not so much because of any
evaluation of s (we
I don't want any kind of locking, true. I need all bots to respond in
time otherwise the poker server will sit them out. Eliminating the
timeout on pickling does not eliminate the timeout overall, it just
passes it to a different place.
One thread will go through serialization quickly but
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 09:30:14PM +, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
I don't know how it's done, but when you compile it with 'ghc -O2',
the program runs in constant space. Unfortunately with Hugs and GHCi it
grows.
The live set, or just the
On 21/12/05, Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:13:07PM +, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
Try running
putStrLn (unlines (repeat hello!))
You may be surprised ;-)
Or not ;-) But yes, I should've checked and my comments on how that'll
behave
On 12/21/05, Joel Reymont [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't want any kind of locking, true. I need all bots to respond in
time otherwise the poker server will sit them out. Eliminating the
timeout on pickling does not eliminate the timeout overall, it just
passes it to a different place.
One
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 12:17, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Robin Green wrote:
Whilst localising IO to a small part of the program is generally a
good idea, beginners should not be scared off by the thought that
IO in Haskell is so hard it has to be covered on page 94. This is
not the
As a newbie... I'll agree with Robin. I /did/ think that IO in
Haskell was probably very difficult because it's covered in page 94.
I skimmed through YAHT and IO is covered wyyy deep into the
document. I haven't read that section yet, but there is a lot of
content and to me it looked
Mark Goldman wrote:
nitpicky detail:
() - Parenthesis
{} - Braces
[] - Brackets
Sorry to be pedantic, but using the wrong terminology confuses me and
I'm sure others as well.
Being pedantic can be fun :)
The Macquarie Dictionary, which is the official dictionary in Australia,
says that ()
noise
The truth is, Haskell friggen rocks at IO compared to imperative
languages. We are all spoiled and see IO in haskell as ugly because we
have been exposed to the pure functional goodness of the rest of
haskell. but teaching haskell as a better impertive language than
imperative ones from the
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 16:49, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
On 12/21/05, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Beginners know that too. In fact, they often think that practical
applications need far more IO than they really do! So to
insinuate even slightly
Daniel Carrera wrote:
As a newbie... I agree that a newbie should be able to write this fairly
early on:
main = do
x - getLine()
putStrLn (The answer is ++ show(fib(read(x
I'd agree for some definition of 'early'. I'll elaborate:
This entire discussion is about 'breaking
92 matches
Mail list logo
