On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 15:43, Edward Kmett wrote:
> I've had a fairly easy time of hiring Haskell programmers.
>
Does this mean your company actively uses Haskell in projects? Would you be
willing/able to describe this work in more detail for the curious?
Sean
___
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 09:43 -0400, Edward Kmett wrote:
>
> * How many applications did you get?
>
> I tend to actively recruit rather than throw open the floodgates.
We did that initially. We are now very pleased that we switched track to
openly advertising. We've had many excellent peo
On 2 July 2010 11:56, JP Moresmau wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Duncan Coutts
> wrote:
>>
>> When we are done we intend to write up a blog post more details, e.g.
>> numbers and the range/distribution of experience among candidates. I
>> hope that will be useful to people who are in
On 3 Jul 2010, at 03:39, Don Stewart wrote:
> ivan.miljenovic:
Hmm, interesting. Applicative and Traversable are two classes I've never
used and don't really understand the purpose of. I have no idea what
hsc2hs is. I keep hearing finger trees mentioned, but only in connection
On Jul 2, 2010, at 7:08 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
Knowing about something /= knowing how to use it. I own and have read
RWH, but I've never had to use hsc2hs, or Applicative, etc.
Applicative is nice. I had to Google for hsc2hs. This is what I get
for learning Haskell from the Hask
ivan.miljenovic:
> >> Hmm, interesting. Applicative and Traversable are two classes I've never
> >> used and don't really understand the purpose of. I have no idea what
> >> hsc2hs is. I keep hearing finger trees mentioned, but only in connection
> >> to papers that I can't access. So I guess
Don Stewart writes:
> andrewcoppin:
>> Edward Kmett wrote:
>>> "Knowledge of Haskell" means very different things to different
>>> people. I'd be somewhat leery of blindly hiring someone based on their
>>> ability to answer a couple of pop Haskell quiz questions.
>>>
>>> A better test might b
andrewcoppin:
> Edward Kmett wrote:
>> "Knowledge of Haskell" means very different things to different
>> people. I'd be somewhat leery of blindly hiring someone based on their
>> ability to answer a couple of pop Haskell quiz questions.
>>
>> A better test might be if they really understood Ap
aditya siram writes:
> Maybe the codebase he's hiring for makes heavy use of Applicative,
> Traversable, unboxing etc.
Nah, I talked to him about it last night (because like Andrew I've never
really used either of those classes, though I do know what hsc2hs is,
just never used it). Edward just
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Hmm, interesting. Applicative and Traversable are two classes I've never
used and don't really understand the purpose of.
Their main purpose is to avoid the list bias so prevalent from the
Lispish side of FP. Namely, there are many different kinds of
collections which can
On 02/07/10 14:43, Edward Kmett wrote:
"Knowledge of Haskell" means very different things to different
people. I'd be somewhat leery of blindly hiring someone based on their
ability to answer a couple of pop Haskell quiz questions.
Fair enough, and I should probably have put a smiley in ther
Maybe the codebase he's hiring for makes heavy use of Applicative,
Traversable, unboxing etc.
-deech
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Andrew Coppin
wrote:
> Edward Kmett wrote:
>>
>> "Knowledge of Haskell" means very different things to different people.
>> I'd be somewhat leery of blindly hirin
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 06:03:31PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Edward Kmett wrote:
> >"Knowledge of Haskell" means very different things to different
> >people. I'd be somewhat leery of blindly hiring someone based on
> >their ability to answer a couple of pop Haskell quiz questions.
> >
> >A bet
Edward Kmett wrote:
"Knowledge of Haskell" means very different things to different
people. I'd be somewhat leery of blindly hiring someone based on their
ability to answer a couple of pop Haskell quiz questions.
A better test might be if they really understood Applicative and
Traversable, or
> A better test might be if they really understood Applicative and
> Traversable, or if they knew how to use hsc2hs; Talk about unboxing and when
> to apply strictness annotations, finger trees, stream fusion, purely
> functional data structures or ways to implement memoization in a purely
> functi
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I'm starting to see job adverts mentioning Haskell as a "nice to have", and
> even in some cases as a technology to work with.
>
> However right now I'm looking at it from the other side. Suppose someone
> wants to hire a Haskell developer o
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Duncan Coutts wrote:
>
>
> When we are done we intend to write up a blog post more details, e.g.
> numbers and the range/distribution of experience among candidates. I
> hope that will be useful to people who are interested in hiring Haskell
> programmers.
>
>
It wo
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 20:34 +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I'm starting to see job adverts mentioning Haskell as a "nice to have",
> and even in some cases as a technology to work with.
>
> However right now I'm looking at it from the other side. Suppose
> someone wants to hire a Haskell develope
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/1/10 13:41 , aditya siram wrote:
> I'm picturing a non-Haskell developer getting thrown into the deep
> end. Now that I think about it I think that's part of why companies
> choose Java/C# etc. - they can just let Google train their people.
...an
Right, but I assume you have local experts who are willing to teach on
site. In most companies I've worked for there is minimal training.
Haskell really needs someone who can patiently walk alongside.
I'm picturing a non-Haskell developer getting thrown into the deep
end. Now that I think about it
That's not really true. We train people at Galois in Haskell, on the job.
Often they have prior FP experience, but not always.
aditya.siram:
> > And learning (fun) should be an important aspect of the position.
> Whatever FP you're coming from, I don't think you can pick up Haskell
> on the job. H
> And learning (fun) should be an important aspect of the position.
Whatever FP you're coming from, I don't think you can pick up Haskell
on the job. Haskell seems to require you to disappear into a cave for
a while, then again I haven't had the pleasure of working with
experienced Haskell programm
It depends on the type of a position.
If it is a "one-shot"/contract job then you are looking for the concrete
skillset/expertise, i.e. "Haskell".
For relatively longterm or permanent positions I think it is better to give
a priority to smart and "getting things done" type of persons rather than
s
paul:
> I'm starting to see job adverts mentioning Haskell as a "nice to have",
> and even in some cases as a technology to work with.
>
> However right now I'm looking at it from the other side. Suppose
> someone wants to hire a Haskell developer or three. How easy is this?
> I'd apprecia
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> I'm starting to see job adverts mentioning Haskell as a "nice to have", and
>> even in some cases as a technology to work with.
>>
>> However right now I'm looking at it from the other side. Suppose someone
>> wants to hire a Haskell devel
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I'm starting to see job adverts mentioning Haskell as a "nice to have", and
> even in some cases as a technology to work with.
>
> However right now I'm looking at it from the other side. Suppose someone
> wants to hire a Haskell developer or
26 matches
Mail list logo
