Hello,
I've got a problem, in short my haskell code sucks. While it does work
and I do manage to use higher-orderish aspects quite extensively to make
my code more concise it still is nowhere abstract, always concrete and
thus always with lots of boilerplate.
Oh I have gotten better
2010/2/14 Günther Schmidt gue.schm...@web.de:
So fellows, what is the next stop on my road to enlightenment? I really
think I need best to start from scratch. I think I'm sufficiently familiar
now with most of Haskell's technicalities but how do I climb the ladder of
abstraction?
A couple of
* On Sun, Feb 14 2010, Günther Schmidt wrote:
So fellows, what is the next stop on my road to enlightenment? I
really think I need best to start from scratch. I think I'm
sufficiently familiar now with most of Haskell's technicalities but
how do I climb the ladder of abstraction?
Read more
Hi Günther
Promoting a slightly contrary view, I'm not sure that abstraction
should be a goal in itself. Richard Gabriel makes a point of valuing
'habitable' code over abstract code in his 'Patterns of Software' book
(free from his website now that it's out of print). Habitable code
being code
On Feb 14, 2010, at 4:38 AM, Günther Schmidt wrote:
I've got a problem, in short my haskell code sucks. While it does
work and I do manage to use higher-orderish aspects quite
extensively to make my code more concise it still is nowhere
abstract, always concrete and thus always with lots
Well I just noticed that the boilerplate part consists of this:
Import data by selecting fields from a table, feed them into some sort
of internal data structure for later querying, times 12. All this
involves quite a bit of boilerplate.
Yeah, I guess I could abstract here a little.
Günther
Hello,
2010/2/14, Günther Schmidt gue.schm...@web.de:
Hello,
I've got a problem, in short my haskell code sucks. While it does work
and I do manage to use higher-orderish aspects quite extensively to make
my code more concise it still is nowhere abstract, always concrete and
thus always
