Hello Vimal,
Sunday, October 14, 2007, 2:44:05 PM, you wrote:
> Dear Haskellers,
> I have been trying my best to read about Haskell from the various
first time when i tried to learn haskell i give up and returned only a
year later :) about IO: you may try to read
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/
On 10/19/07, Valery V. Vorotyntsev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/19/07, Johan Tibell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > If you have a web server somewhere you can use CGIIRC. That's what I
> > did in a similar situation.
> >
> > http://cgiirc.org/
>
> Thanks, Johan!
There is one at http://irc
On 10/19/07, Johan Tibell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If you have a web server somewhere you can use CGIIRC. That's what I
> did in a similar situation.
>
> http://cgiirc.org/
Thanks, Johan!
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http:
On 10/19/07, Valery V. Vorotyntsev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/18/07, Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Please drop by the irc channel! enthusiasm is always welcome there, and
> > we're pretty much all obsessed too!
>
> Maybe that's not The Right Thing(TM) to ask, but anyway. :)
On 10/18/07, Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please drop by the irc channel! enthusiasm is always welcome there, and
> we're pretty much all obsessed too!
Maybe that's not The Right Thing(TM) to ask, but anyway. :)
My access the world outside the office's LAN is limited to ports 80 and
andrewcoppin:
> Hugh Perkins wrote:
> >You're picking on Andrew Coppin? That's insane. He's got a sense of
> >humour, and he's a lay (non-phd) person.
> >
> >Honestly, in one thread you've got "Haskell is misunderstood! Its the
> >greatest language in the world! Why does no-one use it" and i
Steven Fodstad wrote:
FWIW, other people feel about Haskell the way you feel about calculus
and the continuation monad, and your opinions of these other powerful,
but difficult, tools is what got you into this mess.
On the contrary, other people's misinterpretation of my opinions on
these mat
Brent Yorgey wrote:
Well anyway, as you can see, I'm back. Mainly because I have
questions
that I need answers for...
glad you're back. =)
This mailing list is the only place I know of that is
inhabited by people who actually think Haskell is something worth
persuing.
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Felipe Lessa writes:
> > On 10/17/07, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ... And it frustrates the hell out of me that 100% of the human
> > > population consider Haskell to be an irrelevant joke language. ...
>
> > I feel this way as w
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:59:41 +0100
Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well anyway, as you can see, I'm back. Mainly because I have
> questions that I need answers for...
Welcome back ;)
> This mailing list is the only place I know of that is inhabited by
> people who actually think Haske
i fear that, at this point, this thread is a test: if I post a reply, it
shows that I am a fool. ah well.
JK, of course there are foolish teachers out there. I don't think Felipe
was suggesting that this teacher had the right idea, nor that he himself
was going to stop haskelling anytime soo
Felipe Lessa writes:
On 10/17/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We shall thus understand that a teacher who likes Fibonacci, is a
representant of of the 100% of the human population.
Sorry if I didn't understand very well the tone of your message or if
I wasn't clear enough, however what I was trying to
On 10/17/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We shall thus understand that a teacher who likes Fibonacci, is a
> representant of of the 100% of the human population.
Sorry if I didn't understand very well the tone of your message or if
I wasn't clear enough, however what I was tryin
Felipe Lessa writes:
On 10/17/07, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... And it frustrates the hell out of me that 100% of the human
population consider Haskell to be an irrelevant joke language. ...
I feel this way as well, specially because one of the teachers here
tell all students
On 10/17/07, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it. And it frustrates the hell out of me that 100% of the human
> population consider Haskell to be an irrelevant joke language. So I
> basically have this uncontrollably awsome thing in front of me that I
> spend all my time and energy intera
Well anyway, as you can see, I'm back. Mainly because I have questions
> that I need answers for...
glad you're back. =)
This mailing list is the only place I know of that is
> inhabited by people who actually think Haskell is something worth
> persuing.
don't forget about the IRC channel!
-B
Hugh Perkins wrote:
You're picking on Andrew Coppin? That's insane. He's got a sense of
humour, and he's a lay (non-phd) person.
Honestly, in one thread you've got "Haskell is misunderstood! Its the
greatest language in the world! Why does no-one use it" and in
another you're insulting on
On Oct 15, 2007, at 7:01 , Yitzchak Gale wrote:
But I think we are still at the stage where a programmer
who wants practical results is better off starting out
by learning how to use monads in practice, not by
delving into category theory.
No argument from a Haskell standpoint. Still, when p
Richard A. O'Keefe writes:
(2) The mathematical background of Haskell is extremely important
for implementations. Some important data structures and
techniques are practical in large part because of the kinds of
optimisations that are only straightforward in a language that
has
> The really amazing thing about the IO Monad in Haskell is that
> there *isn't* any magic going on. An level of understanding
> adequate for using the I/O and State monads stuff (that is,
> adequate for practically anything analogous to what you might
> do in another language) goes like this:[...
G'day all.
Quoting "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I would really like to see "category theory for the working
*non*mathematician".
It's pricey, but your local university library probably has it:
http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521478175
Cheers,
G'day all.
Quoting "Richard A. O'Keefe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
(5) Precisely because it seeks generality, category theory seems
difficult to "concrete thinkers". And books on category theory
tend to be extremely fast-paced, so ideas which are not in themselves
particularly esoteric (
On Oct 14, 2007, at 23:13 , Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
(5) Precisely because it seeks generality, category theory seems
difficult to "concrete thinkers". And books on category theory
tend to be extremely fast-paced, so ideas which are not in
themselves
particularly esoteric (whic
On 15 Oct 2007, at 5:41 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, when J. Vimal "threateneds us" to throw away Haskell,
complained about
monads, and most people confirmed that the underlying theory is
difficult,
ugly, and useless, I began to read those postings with attention,
since
I disagree with
On Oct 14, 2007, at 22:54 , Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
The really amazing thing about the IO Monad in Haskell is that
there *isn't* any magic going on. An level of understanding
adequate for using the I/O and State monads stuff (that is,
adequate for practically anything analogous to what you m
On 15 Oct 2007, at 2:59 am, Vimal wrote:
I like the quote found on this site: http://patryshev.com/monad/m-
intro.html
Monads in programming seem to be the most mysterious notion of the
century.
I find two reasons for this:
* lack of familiarity with category theory;
* many authors
Or you could just use Data.Sequence and brows the code at your later
leisure, right? Better yet, you could forget about optimal
datastructures until you learned how to do toy problems with just
plain lists.
--S
On Oct 14, 2007, at 2:12 PM, Brian Hurt wrote:
And the situation is worse with
G'day all.
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have heard that a few times, not recently. This is really interesting,
WHAT do you actually miss?
Off the top of my head, from H1.4, I miss:
- MonadZero (a lot)
- Some of the monad/functor-overloaded functions (quite a bit)
- Record punning
G'day all.
Quoting Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I tried to use Wikipedia to learn about how to build digital filters...
this was a disaster. There is almost no useful information there! :-(
That's not my experience. I didn't really understand Kalman filters
until I read the Wikipedia p
G'day all.
Vimal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quoted someone else as saying:
Monads in programming seem to be the most mysterious notion of the century.
I agree with the "hair shirt" talk on this. I found understanding monads
no harder than understanding objects, starting from a comparable level of
i
Andrew Bromage writes:
There's some stuff from Haskell 1.3 that I miss, and I hope it will
come back, but there's also stuff that we're better off without.
I have heard that a few times, not recently. This is really interesting,
WHAT do you actually miss?
For me, from the ancient times, wha
G'day all.
Quoting Derek Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The first goal listed in the Haskell 1.0 Report is:
"It should be suitable for teaching, research, and applications,
including building large systems."
Haskell was never intended to be solely a teaching or research language.
(You didn't nec
> "jerzy" == jerzy karczmarczuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
jerzy> But, when J. Vimal "threateneds us" to throw away Haskell,
jerzy> complained about monads, and most people confirmed that the
jerzy> underlying theory is difficult, ugly, and useless, I began
jerzy> t
> Correction, I'm also very interested in Haskell, and I even don't have a
bachelor degree :-) I'm a completely self-educated kind-a-guy...
That's true, and actually you and Andrew are two of the people whose
opinions I respect the most. Well, I'll add SPJ to that list I guess.
> Anyway, IMHO Ha
On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 15:22 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Vimal wrote:
> > I think you have got a very good point in your mail that I overlooked
> > all along ... "Why was Haskell created?" is a question that I havent
> > tried looking for a answer :)
> >
>
> To avoid success at all costs?
>
>
Or F#, if you know C#, which is the "OCaml for the .NET world".
Now I immediately went from C/C++/C# to Haskell, and yes, that was (is)
hard. For me, the book Haskell School of Expression did it... All you
need is a good book and lots of patience...
Brian Hurt wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, A
Correction, I'm also very interested in Haskell, and I even don't have a
bachelor degree :-) I'm a completely self-educated kind-a-guy...
Anyway, IMHO Haskell rocks! A year ago I kind of started to hate writing
code, and that after 25 years of coding in imperative and
object-oriented languages
Brian Hurt writes:
I'm going to offer an opinion here that's likely to be controversial (in
this forum): people new to functional programming shouldn't learn Haskell
first.
Great! So, there are at least two of us!
They should start with either Ocaml or SML first.
Or Scheme.
Or *any* de
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, David Stigant wrote:
> However, most widely-used programs (ex: web browsers, word processors,
> email programs, data bases, IDEs) tend to be 90% IO and 10% (or less)
> computation.
No, they don't. They look it, but there's always a fair amount of
computation going on to de
You're picking on Andrew Coppin? That's insane. He's got a sense of
humour, and he's a lay (non-phd) person.
Honestly, in one thread you've got "Haskell is misunderstood! Its the
greatest language in the world! Why does no-one use it" and in
another you're insulting one of the few non-phds
most widely-used programs (ex: web browsers, word processors, email
programs, data bases, IDEs) tend to be 90% IO and 10% (or less) computation.
This can make Haskell quite unweildy for solving these types of problems.
On the otherhand, writing something like a compiler (which requires a small
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Vimal wrote:
I like learning by
comparison with other similar languages. This approach worked for me
when I tried learning Python+Perl together. The nicer syntax and
easier object-orientedness made me leave Perl behind and pursue
Python.
I also tried
Roberto Zunino writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Andrew Coppin wrote:
OK. I get the message. I'm unsubscribing now...
There was no need to.
Please, let's keep haskell-cafe a friendly place, as it's always been.
Yes.
I would add, friendly and USEFUL, as it's always been. It was not m
On 10/14/07, david48 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/14/07, Lennart Augustsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You don't need to unsubscribe. Just avoid posting things that are totally
> > wrong (at least without a warning).
>
> How would he know they're "totally wrong" ?
Thinking before hittin
On 10/14/07, Lennart Augustsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You don't need to unsubscribe. Just avoid posting things that are totally
> wrong (at least without a warning).
How would he know they're "totally wrong" ?
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskel
You don't need to unsubscribe. Just avoid posting things that are totally
wrong (at least without a warning).
-- Lennart
On 10/14/07, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I will be impolite.
> >
> > If this were the first posting of A.C., I would suspect th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I will be impolite.
There was no need to.
Andrew Coppin wrote:
> OK. I get the message. I'm unsubscribing now...
There was no need to.
Please, let's keep haskell-cafe a friendly place, as it's always been.
When someone posts inaccurate (or even wrong) facts:
"Atta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will be impolite.
If this were the first posting of A.C., I would suspect that he is
pulling
my leg, that his brilliant sense of humour surpasses my comprehension, so
I should be filled-up with deep respect for such a wonderful mind. But
enough is enough. Now, would
I will be impolite.
Andrew Coppin says:
For what it's worth, a "category" is a "class" bearing some additional
structure. A "class" is exactly like a "set", except that all sets are
classes, but only some classes are also sets. There *is* a reason for
this, but nobody knows what it is. (They sa
On 10/14/07, Vimal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IO isnt the only problem. Monads + how to define your own Monads etc.
> Since Monad's arent just for IO, where else could it be used? (e.g.
> Stateful functions), but is that it? Is it possible for me to come
> up with an instance of a Monad to solve
On 10/14/07, Vimal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Haskellers,
> I have been trying my best to read about Haskell from the various
> tutorials available on the internet and blogs. I havent been following
> YAHT properly, so its always been learning from 'bits and pieces'
> scattered around.
You
Vimal wrote:
@Andrew:
But, being a computer science student, I think I need to look into it too!
I like the quote found on this site: http://patryshev.com/monad/m-intro.html
Monads in programming seem to be the most mysterious notion of the century.
I find two reasons for this:
* lack o
Vimal wrote:
I think you have got a very good point in your mail that I overlooked
all along ... "Why was Haskell created?" is a question that I havent
tried looking for a answer :)
To avoid success at all costs?
(No, seriously. The basic idea was that there used to be about two-dozen
lang
Vimal wrote:
IO isnt the only problem. Monads + how to define your own Monads etc.
Since Monad's arent just for IO, where else could it be used? (e.g.
Stateful functions), but is that it? Is it possible for me to come
up with an instance of a Monad to solve _my_ problem? Thats the kind
of questio
Vimal wrote:
Wikipedia. Open an article, and you branch out like anything.
Curiosity does kill the cat :(
Yeah, this has always been a problem with me. Its like browsing
Whenever I do this, I usually end up reading about something utterly
unrelated. (Actually, I usually end up reading about
I think you have got a very good point in your mail that I overlooked
all along ... "Why was Haskell created?" is a question that I havent
tried looking for a answer :)
> I also agree about this, so I started looking for small projects on which to
> cut my teeth and really learn the basic concepts
>
> In my opinion (other may think differently) it is not a good idea to
> learn IO by starting with trying to grasp the theoretical foundation for
> monads. In the beginning you should just view the IO monad as Haskell's
> way of doing imperative IO stuff. When you feel comfortable with Haskell
>
@Andrew:
> This probably works quite well for mainstream programming languages
> (since they're all so similar), but is unlikely to work at all for
> Haskell (since, as far as I know, no other programming language on Earth
> is remotely like it - Miranda excluded). Even Lisp and Erland are
> nothin
Cool! Lots of opinion. Let me consider them one by one:
@Neil:
> This is where you went wrong. I know none of this stuff and am
> perfectly happy with IO in Haskell. Read
> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Monads_as_Contai
David Stigant wrote:
Haskell programs tend to be structured to restrict IO to the surface
level of the program, and use purely functional ideas to solve the
meat of the problem. This seems to be one of the major design features
of the language.
Yep, that's the idea. :-D
However, most widely-
I just started working in Haskell about 2-3 months ago, and I'm loving it.
I've programmed a lot in Scheme which I learned my freshman year in college,
so that helped a lot with the difference between functional and oop
languages, but as Andrew Coppin mentioned, Haskell is quite different even
Hi Vimal
> I didnt want to repeat that mistake, so I made sure I would learn IO
> in Haskell, which initially turned out to be a disaster, due to the
> 'Moands' which sounded like 'Go Mads' to me.
>
> Then, I set out to learn Monads + Category Theory from a Math
> perspective. And since I haven't
Vimal wrote:
I like learning by
comparison with other similar languages. This approach worked for me
when I tried learning Python+Perl together. The nicer syntax and
easier object-orientedness made me leave Perl behind and pursue
Python.
I also tried it for Haskell (Lisp+OCaml+Haskell together).
Hi
> Then, I set out to learn Monads + Category Theory from a Math
> perspective.
This is where you went wrong. I know none of this stuff and am
perfectly happy with IO in Haskell. Read
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Monads_as_Containers and then read
lots of other Monad tutorials for Haskell
Dear Haskellers,
I have been trying my best to read about Haskell from the various
tutorials available on the internet and blogs. I havent been following
YAHT properly, so its always been learning from 'bits and pieces'
scattered around.
For most languages (like C/C++/Ruby/Python), the above appro
65 matches
Mail list logo
