111–120 of 240 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why do we need Haskell for this?
Because for some reason there are no pure strict-by-default languages around.
Idris (2), PureScript, Elm, Unison, Roc, Lean (4), Koka, Flix (and some other I've forgotten about).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because for some reason there are no pure strict-by-default languages around.
I think Idris is the best example of a pure strict-by-default language (that also supports totality checking, I believe).
Yes, it does. It's also dependently typed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes - the value of functional programming isn't that working in OCAML, or F#, or Haskell is 10x as productive as other languages. This is not true in my personal experience. As has been famously said (paraphrased): Functional programming makes tough problems easy and easy problems tough. In other words the value of functional programming depends on your domain.
How do you “Hello World” in a functional language? Doesn’t it have side effects?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes - the value of functional programming isn't that working in OCAML, or F#, or Haskell is 10x as productive as other languages. This is not true in my personal experience. As has been famously said (paraphrased): Functional programming makes tough problems easy and easy problems tough. In other words the value of functional programming depends on your domain.
How do you “Hello World” in a functional language? Doesn’t it have side effects?
Edit: Eh, I thought it was a fun quip.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes - the value of functional programming isn't that working in OCAML, or F#, or Haskell is 10x as productive as other languages. This is not true in my personal experience. As has been famously said (paraphrased): Functional programming makes tough problems easy and easy problems tough. In other words the value of functional programming depends on your domain.
How do you “Hello World” in a functional language? Doesn’t it have side effects?
Even in Haskell, which tries to control side-effects more, it's not hard; it's just that it's stuck with an "IO" annotation. Any function that calls an IO function also becomes an IO function; it's infectious.
main :: IO ()
main = putStrLn "hello, world"Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hot take of the day: you learn that with imperative programming just as well. I familiarized myself with fp to the point of writing scheme and haskell around 15 years ago. Read the classics, understood advanced typing, lambda calculus and so on. The best “fp” I’m using nowadays is closures, currying in the form of func.bind(this[, first]) and map/filter. Which all are absolutely learnable by the means of closures, wh…
In theory, you could pick up your one language, say, Java, and through the course of a normal career learn everything necessary to program in that language in the best possible way. In practice, it's a pretty well-known phenomenon experienced by many skilled programmers that being forced into different styles by different languages results in learning things that you would only have learned very slowly if you had stu…
I wish I skipped this FP tour completely and instead learned how to structure my programs directly. Could save me a year or five. Maybe there’s no better way, but in practice clear explanations are always better than these arcane teachings where you repeat something until you get it by yourself.
Cute. All kidding aside, though, functional programming is worth the effort to learn, and it doesn't actually take 15 years. The payoff is at the end of the article: "It’s quite natural to program in Haskell by building a declarative model of your domain data, writing pure functions over that data, and interacting with the real world at the program’s boundaries. That’s my favorite way to work, Haskell or not." Haskel…
Yes - the value of functional programming isn't that working in OCAML, or F#, or Haskell is 10x as productive as other languages. But that it can teach you worthwhile lessens about designing software that apply equally to imperative languages. Modelling the business domain, reasoning and managing side effects, avoiding common imperative bugs, these are all valuable skills to develop. F# is a great language to learn,…
Cute. All kidding aside, though, functional programming is worth the effort to learn, and it doesn't actually take 15 years. The payoff is at the end of the article: "It’s quite natural to program in Haskell by building a declarative model of your domain data, writing pure functions over that data, and interacting with the real world at the program’s boundaries. That’s my favorite way to work, Haskell or not." Haskel…
I was a college dropout and self taught bash and python programmer and quite some time ago, I read about Haskell, decided to teach myself to use it, and then realized I had absolutely no idea what programming actually was, and basically spent the next 15 years teaching myself computer science, category theory, abstract algebra and so on, so that I could finally understand Haskell code. I still don't understand Haskel…
Cute. All kidding aside, though, functional programming is worth the effort to learn, and it doesn't actually take 15 years. The payoff is at the end of the article: "It’s quite natural to program in Haskell by building a declarative model of your domain data, writing pure functions over that data, and interacting with the real world at the program’s boundaries. That’s my favorite way to work, Haskell or not." Haskel…
I feel like functional programming is pretty trivial. It's pure programming that is very difficult. They're often conflated because Haskell is pure and functional and probably the most talked about heavily functional language. I certainly didn't know that impure functional languages like OCaml existed for ages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> nor have I ever seen a program that I use, written in it The only mass market Haskell software that I know of is Pandoc. Others like Shellcheck and Postgrest are popular in their niche. I am not sure that Haskell is faring worse that other programming languages in its level of popularity, like Julia, Clojure or Erlang.
Pandoc seems useful, but maybe "mass market" is a bit of an overstatement? And since many programmers like myself had to learn Haskell, I think Haskell should have a better head start and be in a better position, if it would be so useful for "real world" use cases. But please don't take this as an attack on haskell. I have nothing against the language, or its users and I did not suffered because of it in university,…
Haskell never got the “killer framework” like Rails or Spark that allowed to become more mainstream, even if it was teached in Universities all over the world.