I suppose that what qualifies as a good Haskell candidate depends on what you
are looking for in a software engineer in general. For my part, having hired
engineers into various groups over the last 20+ years, I've always preferred to
hire people who demonstrate a broad understanding of computin
Back to initial topic, I have a sudden fear: do you have to master Template
Haskell so as to be regarded as a guru :-{ ?
Let it be no, please, let it be no...
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/3/10 07:25 , Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
> Mihai Maruseac writes:
>> As a matter of fact, all of my Haskell codes didn't even touch monads.
>> I always tried to write code as simple as possible and as
>> understandable as possible (mainly for te
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/3/10 08:01 , Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> so, the main catch for C part were OS-specific calls like
> GetPhysicalMemory - i spent lot of time reading mans. for Haskell
> part, main changes were about default directories
Even without libraries, if you
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
wrote:
> Felipe Lessa writes:
>> There are many many other useful C libraries that we should have
>> bindings to. For example, Hackage doesn't have any MPI bindings.
>> Could we write an MPI client in Haskell? I guess so. Is it worth it?
>
Felipe Lessa writes:
> There are many many other useful C libraries that we should have
> bindings to. For example, Hackage doesn't have any MPI bindings.
> Could we write an MPI client in Haskell? I guess so. Is it worth it?
We might get some in two weeks time at AusHac!!! http://www.haskel
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Daniel Fischer wrote:
> Andrew Coppin:
>> > Who says they do, or should?
>>
>> Don, a few emails ago.
>
> I think you missed a small detail there.
>
>> ivan.miljenovic:
>> > >> Hmm, interesting. Applicative and Traversable are two classes I've
>> > >> never used a
Daniel Fischer writes:
>> > Knowing about something /= knowing how to use it. I own and have read
>> > RWH, but I've never had to use hsc2hs, or Applicative, etc.
>>
>> Writing libraries that bind to C is a great way to have to use a lot of
>> hsc2hs (or c2hs), so clearly you need to contribute
On Saturday 03 July 2010 12:12:56, Thomas Davie wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2010, at 11:04, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 7/3/10 05:57 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
> >> Agreed. So let me rephrase: Why should _every_ Haskell library
> >> involve C? ;
Yves Parès writes:
> And conversely, someone who have made a C-to-Haskell binding may not be a
> Haskell guru.
>
> What about Arrows: do you think one should master them so that he could be
> regarded as experienced?
> It's kind of hard to put a border between casual Haskell and skilled
> Haskell
Hello Ivan,
Saturday, July 3, 2010, 3:24:34 PM, you wrote:
>> haskell code is easily ported between OSes, unlike C one. when i
>> ported my application from Win to Linux, i spend one day on haskell
>> code and 3 days on C one, despite the fact that haskell code dealed
>> with OS interaction and C
And conversely, someone who have made a C-to-Haskell binding may not be a
Haskell guru.
What about Arrows: do you think one should master them so that he could be
regarded as experienced?
It's kind of hard to put a border between casual Haskell and skilled
Haskell, since it's a very wide language
Mihai Maruseac writes:
> As a matter of fact, all of my Haskell codes didn't even touch monads.
> I always tried to write code as simple as possible and as
> understandable as possible (mainly for teaching purposes) and not as
> optimized as possible.
I take it you don't use IO then?
--
Ivan L
Bulat Ziganshin writes:
> haskell code is easily ported between OSes, unlike C one. when i
> ported my application from Win to Linux, i spend one day on haskell
> code and 3 days on C one, despite the fact that haskell code dealed
> with OS interaction and C used purely for computations
Care to
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 03.07.2010, 11:15 +0100 schrieb Andrew Coppin:
> (That would suggest that Haskell is kind of a pointless exercise...)
Haskell provides pointless exercises, but even these are not pointless.
(SCNR)
Joachim
--
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
mail: m...@joachim-breitner.de | IC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/3/10 06:12 , Thomas Davie wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2010, at 11:04, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
>> Who says they do, or should?
>
> Dons rather implied it... The suggestion is that someone who hasn't used
> hsc2hs is an inexperienced Haskeller... I'd
Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/3/10 05:57 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
Agreed. So let me rephrase: Why should _every_ Haskell library involve C? ;-)
Who says they do, or should?
Don, a few emails ago.
Personally, I agree with you - certa
On 3 Jul 2010, at 11:04, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/3/10 05:57 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
>> Agreed. So let me rephrase: Why should _every_ Haskell library involve C? ;-)
>
> Who says they do, or should?
Dons rather implied it... The s
Hello Andrew,
Saturday, July 3, 2010, 1:57:22 PM, you wrote:
> (I suppose I'm just bitter because any Haskell libraries involving C are
> almost guaranteed to not work on Windows...)
haskell code is easily ported between OSes, unlike C one. when i
ported my application from Win to Linux, i spend
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/3/10 05:57 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Agreed. So let me rephrase: Why should _every_ Haskell library involve C? ;-)
Who says they do, or should? AFAIK it's only done for the reasons I
mentioned (or, sometimes, for library compatibility; a native X
Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/3/10 05:22 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
Besides, why in the world do Haskell libraries have to involve C? I've
written and released several libraries on Hackage, none of which are in any
way related to C. Not every l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/3/10 05:22 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Besides, why in the world do Haskell libraries have to involve C? I've
> written and released several libraries on Hackage, none of which are in any
> way related to C. Not every library is just a C binding, you
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Chris BROWN wrote:
>>>
>>
>> So hsc2hs is related to writing C bindings? Well, that'll be why I've
>> never heard of it then; I don't understand C. (Nor do I particularly
>> want to... I chose Haskell.)
>>
>> Besides, why in the world do Haskell libraries have to i
>>
>
> So hsc2hs is related to writing C bindings? Well, that'll be why I've
> never heard of it then; I don't understand C. (Nor do I particularly
> want to... I chose Haskell.)
>
> Besides, why in the world do Haskell libraries have to involve C? I've
> written and released several librarie
Don Stewart wrote:
So I guess that means that I don't count
as a "knowledgable" Haskell programmer. :-(
RWH is free and online, and covers many useful things. There's no
excuse :-)
I was about to say "yeah, but RWH isn't that good" - and then I noticed
who I'm speaking to. ;-
25 matches
Mail list logo
