On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:27 +0100, Hans van Thiel wrote:
[snip]
I fear those people can do vast amounts of damage. :(
When inept programming yields the wrong result, it is clear (even to the
inept) that the program is bad.
When the result is correct but there are egregious time
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 20:00 +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
[snip]
I raise my question once again: Must Haskell's tutorials be tailored to
impatient programmers? Does Haskell need quickdirty hackers?
IMO yes, because it exposes the language to the outside world and that's
a form of testing.
Am Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2007 14:46 schrieb Hans van Thiel:
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 20:00 +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
[snip]
I raise my question once again: Must Haskell's tutorials be tailored to
impatient programmers? Does Haskell need quickdirty hackers?
IMO yes, because it exposes
I haven't been following this thread closely, but would it be rude to suggest
that someone who doesn't want to put the effort into learning the (admittedly
difficult) concepts that Haskell embodies shouldn't be using the language?
Haskell was never intended to be The Next Big Popular Language.
This is at odds with the notion, popular on this list and other haskell
forums, that pure functional programming is the future.
Perhaps a nit-pick, but I don't think we're talking about *pure* functional
programming. I think we're talking about a mixture of functional and
imperative programming
I'm not sure there are many of us left pursuing that vision.
P.S. I'd love to learn otherwise.
On Dec 11, 2007 10:02 AM, Conal Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is at odds with the notion, popular on this list and other haskell
forums, that pure functional programming is the future.
On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 16:56 +0100, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2007 14:46 schrieb Hans van Thiel:
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 20:00 +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
[snip]
I raise my question once again: Must Haskell's tutorials be tailored to
impatient programmers?
And more power to those who are pursuing the vision!
But in the mean time I need to read and write files, start up external
programs, call Excel through FFI, etc, etc.
And there's no clever API for that yet, only IO. And I'd rather do IO in
Haskell than in C++.
I share the vision, though. I'm
Hans van Thiel wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 16:56 +0100, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Maybe there are also patient people in the outside world so that we can still
expose Haskell to the outside world while not trying to attract
quick-and-dirty hackers. ;-)
But who are those people? And what harm
It may be helpful to distinguish teaching/preaching (a) programming in
Haskell from (b) *functional* programming (in Haskell or otherwise). Each
focus is present in the conversation. Perhaps IO helps the former and
hinders the latter.- Conal
___
Am Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2007 18:34 schrieb Tim Newsham:
[…]
Why is it that every time the topic of teaching basic concepts in
an easier way comes up there are always two or three replies that
say should we bother? lets filter out the idiots?
I think that two different things are mixed in
It might help to point out that its easy to end up with memory/space
leaks in Java/python/ruby/perl too. Also stack overflow is really easy.
Also, you can get into really deep badness if you do anything
interesting with concurrency because of the global interpreter lock etc.
As far as
Am Montag, 10. Dezember 2007 10:36 schrieb Ketil Malde:
Daniel Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I guess you could get pretty far using 'interact' - far enough
in an educational setting to do lists and Maybe, and then monads,
before introducing monadic IO.
Pretty far, yes, and in
On Dec 10, 2007 4:51 AM, Daniel Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Montag, 10. Dezember 2007 10:36 schrieb Ketil Malde:
Daniel Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Various other people write:
... lots of talk about monads and IO ...
When someone comes to me and says I have this Python
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Dan Piponi wrote:
When someone comes to me and says I have this Python script that
scans through these directories and finds the files that meet these
criteria and generates a report based on this template, could I do it
better in Haskell? it'd be good to have a better
Am Montag, 10. Dezember 2007 19:44 schrieb Dan Piponi:
[…]
Maybe hardened Haskell programmers don't notice these things, but
there's a wall that goes up when Haskell is presented to
non-functional programmers. There are significant barriers for them to
cross (some of them imaginary):
That’s
Am Montag, 10. Dezember 2007 20:00 schrieb Henning Thielemann:
[…]
I raise my question once again: Must Haskell's tutorials be tailored to
impatient programmers? Does Haskell need quickdirty hackers?
Who want Haskell to be plastered with syntactic sugar? ;-) ;-)
Best wishes,
Wolfgang
On Dec 10, 2007 7:09 PM, Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there's the fear that laziness can impact performance,
Hmm, tell them that performance isn't all and that laziness helps you to write
more modular programs.
Nah, in this case I've found it's better to realistically compare
On Dec 10, 2007 11:00 AM, Henning Thielemann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does Haskell need quickdirty hackers?
The question isn't Does Haskell need quickdirty hackers? It's
would we get better software (using your favourite metric) if we put
Haskell into the hands of quick and dirty hackers?. I
Hello Dan,
Monday, December 10, 2007, 9:44:06 PM, you wrote:
When someone comes to me and says I have this Python script that
just my cent or two for this discussion: sometime ago I've started an
introduction to IO tutorial. it's both not in English and not finished
so i'll just explain its
Dan Piponi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The question isn't Does Haskell need quickdirty hackers? It's
would we get better software (using your favourite metric) if we put
Haskell into the hands of quick and dirty hackers?. I think the
answer might be yes.
This is an interesting trade-off: if
If Haskell wants yo significantly widen it's audience then the tutorials
have to cater for the impatient.
Perhaps it's better to remain a fringe language. I truly don't know.
-- Lennart
On Dec 10, 2007 7:00 PM, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Dan Piponi
On 10/12/2007, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Dan Piponi wrote:
When someone comes to me and says I have this Python script that
scans through these directories and finds the files that meet these
criteria and generates a report based on this template,
Paul Moore after Henning Thielemann after Dan Piponi:
There are
thousands of competing programming languages out there, and there are
dozens that are viable choices for the task I just mentioned. If my
response to their question takes longer than the time it would take to
find another
Maybe hardened Haskell programmers don't notice these things, but
there's a wall that goes up when Haskell is presented to
non-functional programmers. There are significant barriers for them to
cross (some of them imaginary): there's the infamous type system,
there's the mystique around monads,
On Dec 10, 2007 1:44 PM, Dan Piponi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When someone comes to me and says I have this Python script that
scans through these directories and finds the files that meet these
criteria and generates a report based on this template, could I do it
better in Haskell? it'd be
I haven't been following this thread closely, but would it be rude to suggest that someone who
doesn't want to put the effort into learning the (admittedly difficult) concepts that Haskell
embodies shouldn't be using the language? Haskell was never intended to be The Next Big Popular
Language.
On Dec 10, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Dan Piponi wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 11:00 AM, Henning Thielemann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does Haskell need quickdirty hackers?
The question isn't Does Haskell need quickdirty hackers? It's
would we get better software (using your favourite metric) if we put
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Paul Moore wrote:
On 10/12/2007, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I raise my question once again: Must Haskell's tutorials be tailored to
impatient programmers? Does Haskell need quickdirty hackers?
Haskell is the most practical functional language I have
IO is important because you can't write any real program without using it.
Ouch! I get awfully discouraged when I read statements like this one. The
more people who believe it, the more true it becomes. If you want to do
functional programming, instead of imperative programming in a
Am Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2007 18:31 schrieb Conal Elliott:
IO is important because you can't write any real program without using
it.
Ouch! I get awfully discouraged when I read statements like this one. The
more people who believe it, the more true it becomes. If you want to do
Conal,
It's true that you can avoid using IO (except for a wrapper) for certain
kinds of programs.
For instance, if all you want is a String-String function, or some GUI
program (you forgot to mention fudgets, which was the first wrapper of this
kind) then you can ignore IO and just use a nice
Thanks. If I'm tracking, your real point is that imperative programming in
Haskell is still useful enough to keep around. I agree.
I'm still puzzled. Did you understand something I said, or maybe someone
else said, as suggesting that imperative programming be removed from Haskell
any time
Daniel Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IO is important because you can't write any real program without using
it.
Ouch! I get awfully discouraged when I read statements like this
one.
I think Lennart was referring to that, you HAVE to know a little IO to write
programmes, at least
Am Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2007 23:35 schrieb Ketil Malde:
Daniel Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IO is important because you can't write any real program without using
it.
Ouch! I get awfully discouraged when I read statements like this
one.
I think Lennart was referring to that,
I doubt all imperative programming will be banished from Haskell anytime
soon. I really, really wish we had all the nice abstractions in place
already, but we just don't.
You can't write any program in Haskell without using IO, because the type of
main involves IO.
And currently I believe that
It so happens that Haskell currently insists on main :: IO (). That's
simple to fix, however, and with great pay-off. Suppose instead main :: TV
a (where I'm omitting the other TV type args for simplicity.) Then a
program could not only be run, but also composed with other programs. They
could
I agree with Dan here.
IO is important because you can't write any real program without using it.
So why not teach enough of it to get people off the ground straight away?
People who hang around long enough to do some more Haskell programming
will run into the other monads sooner or later. But
Dan Piponi wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 3:54 PM, Ben Franksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't buy this. As has been noted by others before, IO is a very
special case, in that it can't be defined in Haskell itself, and there is
no evaluation function runIO :: IO a - a.
I'm not sure what a
On Dec 3, 2007 6:36 PM, Ben Franksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
then the special features of IO
will remain associated with monads in general, leading to a whole jumble of
completely wrong ideas about them.
As I only learnt about monads a couple of years ago, the process is
still fresh in my
40 matches
Mail list logo
