On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 01:50:11PM -0800, Jonathan Cast wrote: > On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 10:56 -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > Lennart Augustsson wrote: > > > Most people don't understand pure functional programming either. Does > > > that mean we should introduce unrestricted side effects in Haskell? > > > > The key is to introduce concepts to them in terms they can understand. > > > > You introduce it one way to experienced abstract mathematicians, and a > > completely different way to experienced Perl hackers. I wouldn't expect > > a mathematician to grok Perl, and I wouldn't expect $PERL_HACKER to grok > > abstract math. People have different backgrounds to draw upon, and we > > are under-serving one community. > > False. We are failing to meet the un-realistic expectations of advanced > Perl/Python/Ruby/C/C++/Java/any other imperative language programmers as > to the ease with which they should be able to learn Haskell.
What part of that are you saying is false? That people have different backgrouns and learn differently? > > jcc > > > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
