> In recent conversation with a colleague, he mentioned to me that the term
> "functional programming" has an image problem. He suggested that the term
short komment:
"meta programming" and "meta-language" makes people curious, "functional programming"
seems to have the opposite effect.
merry
to all: excuse my bad english.
to javas: excuse my extreme opinions. - regard me as s.o. of an other... religion.
to newbies: read it.
to haskellers: you don't need to.
johi, Sean.
i remember that i've had the same problems with haskell, at the beginning.
you are right, that there should be a spe
It occurs to me that Haskell would be quite a bit
easier for OO and traditional programmers to grasp if Haskell would actually use
the correct, or at least more commonly used, names for things.
For instance,
data Maybe a = Nothing | Just
a
Maybe is a type
constructor and Nothing and Jus
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 05:26:20PM +, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Throughout this period, I've been accumulating some notes about some things
> that I found challenging along the way. The notes are not organized in any
> way, and they're certainly not complete. I've published them on my web
> si
I've spent part of the past few months learning Haskell and developing a
moderately sized application. I came to this from a long background (20
years or so) of "conventional" programming in a variety of languages (from
Fortran and Algol W to Java and Python). For me, learning Haskell has been
