On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 16:01 +0200, peterv wrote: > 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?
Skilled Haskell programmers write Haskell fluently, but I'd say that that still tends to require more thought per line on average than a typical imperative language. A single line of Haskell tends to do a heck of a lot more than a single line of mainstream imperative languages. Usually, though, once you get a nice base encoding your domain concepts, things move faster. The more code you write the -less- thinking you should need to do relative to imperative languages. Haskell code complexity grows (much) slower with size as compared to most imperative languages. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
