No post body was provided.
Why Haskell Is Worth Learning
111–114 of 114 posts
Re: Why Haskell Is Worth Learning
#112Does FP really help reasoning about programs in a better way? I have a hard time believing that, since what ever logical errors I do in programs can easily manifest themselves in FP programs as well.
Having tried a little Haskell myself, the same bugs that I have in imperative code also appear in functional code, albeit with a different form.
Re: Why Haskell Is Worth Learning
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Define simple. You're appealing to the Turing tar pit argument. The fact that some core language is simple, doesn't mean that the language is simple in a practical situation. That applies to language constructs specified in terms of the core language and even more so to the libraries. We can define Common Lisp in terms of a small core language, heck we can even consider it a library of macros. That makes all the cons…
You are simply making shit up at this point. You absolutely do not, ever, under any circumstances, need to learn or use GADTs or functional dependencies. That is complete and total bullshit. Using a library that uses those features does not require you to learn them, that is the entire point of a library, to hide that from the user of the library. And yes, common lisp is a simple language.
Haha okay, I suppose if you think Common Lisp is simple, then Haskell is simple too. Most people however, consider Common Lisp the opposite of simple. As for the concepts that I mentioned, you explained it yourself very clearly in another comment of yours:
> You need to understand monads to do anything beyond trivial exercises. It is something that virtually every single person coming to haskell from another language is unfamiliar with. I don't see how a focus on such a fundamental aspect of the language is a bad thing. -- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5326342
Re: Why Haskell Is Worth Learning
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are simply making shit up at this point. You absolutely do not, ever, under any circumstances, need to learn or use GADTs or functional dependencies. That is complete and total bullshit. Using a library that uses those features does not require you to learn them, that is the entire point of a library, to hide that from the user of the library. And yes, common lisp is a simple language.
Haha okay, I suppose if you think Common Lisp is simple, then Haskell is simple too. Most people however, consider Common Lisp the opposite of simple. As for the concepts that I mentioned, you explained it yourself very clearly in another comment of yours: > You need to understand monads to do anything beyond trivial exercises. It is something that virtually every single person coming to haskell from another language…
If you think common lisp is complex, you have no idea what the words complex and simple mean. I know you have to know monads. That does not make haskell complex. Just like needing to know hash tables doesn't make C complex.