Reflecting on Haskell in 2016
stephendiehl.com
Reflecting on Haskell in 2016
1–10 of 107 posts
Re: Reflecting on Haskell in 2016
#2The Haskell community is incredibly blessed to have Stephen Diehl around. This is an excellent write up on so many of the things that have happened in the Haskell community this year, not to speak of his other written guides and in-depth explanations which are amazing.
Re: Reflecting on Haskell in 2016
#3I know I won't be thanked for pointing out non-technical infelecities in the writing, and I'm not a grammar nazi or anything but... "There was a lot of excellent Haskell writing this year. One can’t possible enumerate all of them..." A lot of excellent writing is a singular noun, then it refers to "them", plural. Exactly the same mistake made in the next paragraph.
I don't want to be picky but if you're writing something public, learn how to use your language right.
Re: Reflecting on Haskell in 2016
#4I know I won't be thanked for pointing out non-technical infelecities in the writing, and I'm not a grammar nazi or anything but... "There was a lot of excellent Haskell writing this year. One can’t possible enumerate all of them..." A lot of excellent writing is a singular noun, then it refers to "them", plural. Exactly the same mistake made in the next paragraph. I don't want to be picky but if you're writing somet…
> I don't want to be picky but if you're writing something public
Neither do I, but there should be a comma before the "but" there.
Re: Reflecting on Haskell in 2016
#5The Haskell community identifies "no documentation" as a key flaw of their own community? I was going to ask why there hasn't been more uptake of Haskell for all of the apparently cool ideas that are there, but nevermind, I don't think I need to ask now.
Re: Reflecting on Haskell in 2016
#6The Haskell community identifies "no documentation" as a key flaw of their own community? I was going to ask why there hasn't been more uptake of Haskell for all of the apparently cool ideas that are there, but nevermind, I don't think I need to ask now.
Note that it's a contentious issue. Lots of people think there's plenty of documentation. I'm one of them. The people who think documentation is lacking seem to be people who need worked examples of things to understand them. I'm of the opinion that worked examples are often worse than no documentation.
Re: Reflecting on Haskell in 2016
#7I know I won't be thanked for pointing out non-technical infelecities in the writing, and I'm not a grammar nazi or anything but... "There was a lot of excellent Haskell writing this year. One can’t possible enumerate all of them..." A lot of excellent writing is a singular noun, then it refers to "them", plural. Exactly the same mistake made in the next paragraph. I don't want to be picky but if you're writing somet…
> I don't want to be picky but if you're writing something public Neither do I, but there should be a comma before the "but" there.
No: these are dependent clauses, a comma would be incorrect.
Re: Reflecting on Haskell in 2016
#8I know I won't be thanked for pointing out non-technical infelecities in the writing, and I'm not a grammar nazi or anything but... "There was a lot of excellent Haskell writing this year. One can’t possible enumerate all of them..." A lot of excellent writing is a singular noun, then it refers to "them", plural. Exactly the same mistake made in the next paragraph. I don't want to be picky but if you're writing somet…
"infelecities" isn't a word.
Re: Reflecting on Haskell in 2016
#9The Haskell community identifies "no documentation" as a key flaw of their own community? I was going to ask why there hasn't been more uptake of Haskell for all of the apparently cool ideas that are there, but nevermind, I don't think I need to ask now.
I'm also in the "I think there is plenty of documentation" camp, so this topic tends to confuse me when it comes up.
I suppose what people who are curious about Haskell find lacking are definitive language guides like the Rust Book, Effective Go, and the like?
Re: Reflecting on Haskell in 2016
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't want to be picky but if you're writing something public Neither do I, but there should be a comma before the "but" there.
No: these are dependent clauses, a comma would be incorrect.
Actually a comma is needed because that is a compound sentence. The 2nd independent clause has a subject of "you" (implied) and a verb of "learn."