Thanks for the advice. I did not really deeply investigate the monad type classes yet...
It looks like its gonna take a long time for me to learn Haskell. I'm not sure if my long history of imperative and object-oriented programming has something to do with it. Reading Haskell books like SOE is one thing, but writing software in Haskell is really difficult for me. Not only do I miss the "spoiled OO programmer" IDEs with all their candy and code completion and assistants, but I also get the feeling that although similar programs in Haskell or typically N times shorter than their imp/OO counterparts, it would take *me* at least N^2 longer to write them ;) (now I must admit I had the same feeling when switching from 680x0 assembler to C++, but let's say N*2 longer instread of N^2...) Is this true for Haskell in general? I mean how long do experienced Haskell developers spent writing code "to get it right" (excluding minor bugs and performance issues)? Or do they write down Haskell fluently? Regarding those monads, I read a lot of stuff about these beast, trying to get a high-level understanding about them (and apparently I'm not the only newby who struggled with that ;), but after having read "You Could Have Invented Monads!" and then reading http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/marktoberdorf, it all became much clearer. Those pictures really helped... Monads were very confusing because I first looked at Concurrent Clean (it comes with an IDE and games! :), and that language uses a simple "uniqueness typing" approach where the "world" or "state" is explicitly passed as an object, and where the compiler garantees "monadic" usage of that object (warning: that was a lot of fuzzy talk from a newbie trying to look impressive ;) -----Original Message----- From: Benja Fallenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:11 PM To: peterv Cc: Henning Thielemann; Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Functional dependencies *not* part of the next Haskell standard? 2007/7/12, peterv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Amazing, so simple it is, Yoda would say ;) > > I did not realize one could perform "partial application" on types when > declaring instances (I mean not specifying the type of Vector2 in <instance > Vector Vector2>). You ought to meditate on the type class 'Monad,' then, which was the motivating example for allowing these kinds of classes in standard Haskell ;-) All the best, - Benja _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
