If Haskell wants yo significantly widen it's audience then the tutorials have to cater for the impatient. Perhaps it's better to remain a fringe language. I truly don't know.
-- Lennart On Dec 10, 2007 7:00 PM, Henning Thielemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Dan Piponi wrote: > > > When someone comes to me and says "I have this Python script that > > scans through these directories and finds the files that meet these > > criteria and generates a report based on this template, could I do it > > better in Haskell?" it'd be good to have a better answer than "to do > > this you could use the IO monad, but to do things properly you need to > > understand monads so here, learn about the List monad and the Maybe > > monad first, understand how this interface abstracts from both, come > > back when you've finished that, and then I'll tell you how to read and > > write files". And I definitely want a better answer than "Haskell I/O > > is performed using the IO monad but everyone thinks this is bad so > > just wait a few years and someone may write a fancy new nice > > combinator library that does exactly what you want". There are > > thousands of competing programming languages out there, and there are > > dozens that are viable choices for the task I just mentioned. If my > > response to their question takes longer than the time it would take to > > find another language and implement a solution, then Haskell will > > remain a niche language. > > I raise my question once again: Must Haskell's tutorials be tailored to > impatient programmers? Does Haskell need quick&dirty hackers? > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
