> I'm not sure there are many of us left pursuing that vision. P.S. I'd love to learn otherwise.
On Dec 11, 2007 10:02 AM, Conal Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is at odds with the notion, popular on this list and other haskell > forums, that pure functional programming is the future. > > Perhaps a nit-pick, but I don't think we're talking about *pure* > functional programming. I think we're talking about a mixture of functional > and imperative programming in a functional language. Haskell offers a > cleaner separation between the two than, say, Scheme or ML. The idea of > pure functional programming (no explicit IO) for getting real things done is > much more of a lunatic fringe vision, and I'm not sure there are many of us > left pursuing that vision. > > - Conal > > > > On Dec 11, 2007 9:34 AM, Tim Newsham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I haven't been following this thread closely, but would it be rude to > > suggest > > > that someone who doesn't want to put the effort into learning the > > (admittedly > > > difficult) concepts that Haskell embodies shouldn't be using the > > language? > > > Haskell was never intended to be The Next Big Popular Language. It > > was > > > intended to be a purely functional language for people who want to use > > purely > > > functional languages and who are willing to learn new concepts if it > > enables > > > them to program in that style. > > > > This is at odds with the notion, popular on this list and other > > haskell forums, that pure functional programming is the future. > > > > Why is it that every time the topic of teaching basic concepts in > > an easier way comes up there are always two or three replies that > > say "should we bother? lets filter out the idiots?" These are > > pointless and counterproductive. Whether or not you like the idea > > of lesser entities sullying your private, pure, functional programming > > language, there are going to be a lot more people learning this > > language, and there will be people trying to make it easier for them > > to learn it. > > > > > whatever. That said, of course we should strive to have better > > teaching > > > materials, but there are a number of good IO/monad tutorials on the > > web. > > [...] > > > because it enables us to write programs more effectively (in many > > cases, at > > > least) than we can in other languages, but the learning curve is steep > > -- > > > there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. > > > > Many of the best resources for learning Haskell are still academic > > papers published by language researchers. We've still got a long > > long way to go... Sure there's no shortcut to learning difficult > > concepts, but right now its more of a nature hike than a freeway... > > > > > Mike > > > > Tim Newsham > > http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/ <http://www.thenewsh.com/%7Enewsham/> > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
