71–80 of 118 posts
My own approach to learning FP has been "Hello Haskell", "Hello Scala", "Hello ML", "Hello Clojure", "Hello Rust",... I don't know why you say goodbye, I say hello.
My own approach to learning FP has been "Hello Haskell", "Hello Scala", "Hello ML", "Hello Clojure", "Hello Rust",... I don't know why you say goodbye, I say hello.
Maybe you should actually learn something about FP rather than trying to learn a bunch of languages?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? Normally you can enroll for old courses that have completed and view the old material. I've done it before, but you do need a coursera account. Is that not working in this case?
Exactly: Enrollment is Closed We are sorry, but the enrollment for Functional Programming Principles in Scala is currently closed. We will inform you via email when new Coursera classes are launched, so stay tuned for more. Meanwhile, check out some of our other classes here! The Coursera Team
Yeah me too. Coursera = MCOC = Massively Closed Offline Course.
Imagine wikipedia only allowing people to view the "Scala" page between the hours of 7:30 and 8:30 on alternate tuesdays, otherwise you're outta luck, for completely arbitrary reason.
Very unimpressed with the MOOC trend. Bring back MIT OCW where I can download and watch video lectures whenever I want, forever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the things I like about Haskell is that there's never scarcity of new concepts to learn: Functors, Applicatives, Monoids, Monads, Monad transformers, Comonads, Arrows, Lenses, Foldables, Iteratees... And every one of these has a world in itself!
On the other hand, that one time you just need a simple library for something, you get to use some guy's pet experiment for learning one of these concepts (Monoids, Monads, Monad transformers, Comonads, Arrows, Lenses, Foldables, Iteratees, Functional-Reactive Programming) you haven't learned yet just to parse some XML. Yeah, a real productivity booster. It's like batteries included but with C4 attached to every batt…
I learned F# as this guy learned Scala. I too dived into Haskell after a while and learnt a lot of new things. Having learned some great functional tips, I came back to my regular C#/Ruby and applying LINQ and Ruby's blocks seemed more natural to me. However, monads, monoids, functors still don't matter when you switch over. I've used Yesod to write a small app. A typical form in Yesod (for model binding) has this si…
Well, hopefully now you know better.
Anybody here has developed and deployed a Scala-based or/and Haskell-based project for production? I mean systems for business purpose where rubber meets the road with timeline to hit and budget to meet. Far too often the stories are shared by people who learned a new language for 3 months and implemented a pet system where only a few real users. Definitely I respect their zeal and curiosity, but I am more interested…
So, we re-wrote it in scala using lift. We were not pleased with the results. So we re-wrote it in scala using play. We were even less pleased. So we re-wrote it in haskell using snap. We were finally happy. That version is now in production, and the type safety of haskell makes doing changes far safer. The maintenance burden is much smaller now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, that one time you just need a simple library for something, you get to use some guy's pet experiment for learning one of these concepts (Monoids, Monads, Monad transformers, Comonads, Arrows, Lenses, Foldables, Iteratees, Functional-Reactive Programming) you haven't learned yet just to parse some XML. Yeah, a real productivity booster. It's like batteries included but with C4 attached to every batt…
Yeah, those tricky monoids. So hard to learn, and even harder to use a library based on them. You have a whole whopping one function to learn, that does some incredibly convoluted and arcane nonsense called "appending"? What a horrible language. You should definitely devote more time to complaining about ridiculous strawmen like this, it seems like a very good use of time.
I find it unconvincing. That Haskell deemed is better for learning functional programming for the sake of learning functional programming does not really say much about general usefulness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still bad and cabal is still bad. I was in #haskell on IRC not too long ago and they couldn't even figure out why a haskell-platform install couldn't upgrade its own cabal with no other packages installed. Your propagandizing is either based on very insulated anecdote or you're being disingenuous for the sake of promoting your favorite language. The salesmanship does not help Haskell and sets expectations poorly…
>It's still bad and cabal is still bad. No, it isn't. You have the exact same problems with CPAN and everyone and even the most devoted perl-haters will admit "perl is a terrible language, but CPAN is amazing". You run into the exact same problems with every other language, the only difference being dynamic languages tend to be lazy about correctly managing version numbers, so you get "installs properly but completel…
I don't use Perl and that's a crock anyway. I've used Leiningen on Clojure, easy_install/pip on Python and the Golang stack happily with no trouble. I don't like XML or Java, but you'd have a hard time arguing Maven "doesn't work". It's what Leiningen is built upon anyway. Rubygems, rbenv, and bundler aren't perfect but they do largely work for everybody in the Ruby community. Quicklisp has done a lot to improve the state of affairs in Common Lisp and made it pretty easy to use arbitrary libraries.
It's ghc-pkg/cabal on Haskell that have been a pain in the ass. Even sbt on Scala is better and that sucks too.
Cut the tu quoque bullshit, not everybody has a crappy ecosystem. Those that don't, don't because they didn't project a reality distortion field so they could pretend everything was hunky-dory.
Python used to have serious packaging problems. It got over them and eventually became a smooth experience because people recognized the problem and worked on it.
Clojure without Leiningen was horrific. Hagelberg's work there was amazing.
The Golang team has taken things like this seriously all along and since 1.0 a lot of things have been standardized.
Stop denying there's a problem. I'm far from the first person to mention the Haskell ecosystem need works.
The REAL irritation isn't with just ghc-pkg and cabal, but rather that I keep running into crazed partisans like you that won't admit there's a problem. You're the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still bad and cabal is still bad. I was in #haskell on IRC not too long ago and they couldn't even figure out why a haskell-platform install couldn't upgrade its own cabal with no other packages installed. Your propagandizing is either based on very insulated anecdote or you're being disingenuous for the sake of promoting your favorite language. The salesmanship does not help Haskell and sets expectations poorly…
I am not saying cabal is perfect, but the situation has dramatically improved since the prevention of spurious reinstalls. It also seems that hackage uploaders are playing nicer these days, and I just generally get far less breakage. Lots of work is being done on Haskell's package system to make it better. I've been using Haskell for 5 years. It used to be very painful. It is only rarely painful these days.