On Tue, 6 Jul 2010, Edward Kmett wrote:
> While we're on the topic, does anyone else get funny looks when they
> say "monads"?
Sadly, yes. ;)
There is no need anymore to bother people with the word "monad":
http://www.haskell.org.monadtransformer.parallelnetz.de/haskellwiki/Category:Mona
Haskell's FFI [1] is really nice, so you could still write your
performance-critical parts in C.
-deech
[1] http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/interfacing-with-c-the-ffi.html
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Zura_ wrote:
>
> It is ironic, but after reading your paper - "Experience Report: Has
It is ironic, but after reading your paper - "Experience Report: Haskell in
the Real World", I doubt I'll use Haskell for a performance critical
systems. Laziness (and understanding it) is one factor, but there is also
GC, which is a real hassle, especially in embedded/mobile systems for a near
re
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Yves Parès wrote:
>> I must have the same impediment. We should start a support group, that, or
>> give in and write a compiler. To add insult to injury,
>> I think it should be called "Turbo Haskell".
>
> That's true... I never noticed, because in French the two wo
> I must have the same impediment. We should start a support group, that, or
give in and write a compiler. To add insult to injury,
> I think it should be called "Turbo Haskell".
That's true... I never noticed, because in French the two words get
pronounced very differently.
> While we're on the
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo
>
> > wrote:
>
>> "Pascal? Yeah, I used to program in that about 30 years ago".
>> I actually got that response from someone.
>>
>> You only got it once? *Every single person* I say Ha
I would expand your definition of "monadic" to:
"able to syntactically transformed so as to be put in a sequence where an
operation can be altered by the results of the operations preceeding it".
IMO your definition matches more "applicative".
2010/6/18 Alexander Solla
>
> On Jun 17, 2010, at 9:
On Jun 17, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
While we're on the topic, does anyone else get funny looks when they
say "monads"?
Yes, almost every time. They seem to catch on if I say "monadic" when
I mean "able to syntactically transformed so as to be put in a
sequence".
___
>But as a
>starting point, and especially to shake up preconceived notions,
>it still helps to compress common prejudices this way.
Many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging
their prejudices. William James?
:)
--
Regards,
Casey
__
If you want to use cool languages, you may have to get a cool job. I
know: it's easy to say and harder to accomplish.
Most functional languages (e.g. Lisp, Haskell, ...) have a challenging
time in industry since they require some savvy with multiple levels of
higher abstractions and some sa
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo
> wrote:
> Andrew Coppin wrote:
>
> > aditya siram wrote:
> > > No argument there - I'm even afraid to stick it on my resume. At least
> > > Clojure can be snuck into the JVM without people noticing - Haskell,
> > > unfortunately, is not that s
Andrew Coppin wrote:
> aditya siram wrote:
> > No argument there - I'm even afraid to stick it on my resume. At least
> > Clojure can be snuck into the JVM without people noticing - Haskell,
> > unfortunately, is not that shy.
> >
>
> Oh, I don't know... Few companies will want you to *use* Ha
If you want to use cool languages, you may have to get a cool job. I
know: it's easy to say and harder to accomplish.
Most functional languages (e.g. Lisp, Haskell, ...) have a challenging
time in industry since they require some savvy with multiple levels of
higher abstractions and some sa
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:01:53PM -0700, David Leimbach wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Darrin Chandler
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 01:38:23PM -0500, aditya siram wrote:
> > > > Judging by the other thread, "getting hired" might be a valid answer
> > here...
> > > >
> > > No
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Darrin Chandler
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 01:38:23PM -0500, aditya siram wrote:
> > > Judging by the other thread, "getting hired" might be a valid answer
> here...
> > >
> > No argument there - I'm even afraid to stick it on my resume. At least
> > Clojure
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 01:38:23PM -0500, aditya siram wrote:
> > Judging by the other thread, "getting hired" might be a valid answer here...
> >
> No argument there - I'm even afraid to stick it on my resume. At least
> Clojure can be snuck into the JVM without people noticing - Haskell,
> unfort
aditya siram wrote:
No argument there - I'm even afraid to stick it on my resume. At least
Clojure can be snuck into the JVM without people noticing - Haskell,
unfortunately, is not that shy.
Oh, I don't know... Few companies will want you to *use* Haskell, but
lots of people seemed to be i
No argument there - I'm even afraid to stick it on my resume. At least
Clojure can be snuck into the JVM without people noticing - Haskell,
unfortunately, is not that shy.
-deech
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Andrew Coppin
wrote:
> aditya siram wrote:
>>
>> But I wanted to ask people are more
aditya siram wrote:
But I wanted to ask people are more experienced with Haskell - what
kinds of problems is it unsuited for?
Judging by the other thread, "getting hired" might be a valid answer here...
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@hask
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:45:16 -0400
cas...@istar.ca wrote:
> :)
>
Objection!
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/BASIC
A simplified version of the original BASIC embedded in Haskell.
--
Alexey Khudyakov
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@hask
:)
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On Jun 17, 2010, at 10:17 , David Virebayre wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Henning Thielemann
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Marc Weber wrote:
Hi Aditya Siram,
- maybe shell scripting: running ghci takes longer than starting
bash.
Compiling is not always an option because executables
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Henning Thielemann
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Marc Weber wrote:
>> Hi Aditya Siram,
>> - maybe shell scripting: running ghci takes longer than starting bash.
>> Compiling is not always an option because executables are bigger than
>> shell scripts or C exec
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Marc Weber wrote:
Hi Aditya Siram,
- maybe shell scripting: running ghci takes longer than starting bash.
Compiling is not always an option because executables are bigger than
shell scripts or C executables
Is Hugs better in this respect?
__
I remember quite a few months ago, someone gave a presentation on
Haskell and he admitted that so far all he had used it for were shell
scripts. He said that his Haskell shell scripts ran faster than his
shell scripts written in ?
So all he had used so far, was just the imperative part of Haskell
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
wrote:
> David Virebayre writes:
>> *Real* programmers use butterfiles [1].
> If your files are composed of butter, I"d hate to see how you store them
> in an efficient manner...
Oh well, at least le ridicule ne tue pas(1)... I'm a typo s
> - an existing solution exists which does the job and you know you're not
> going to patch the source ( eg OpenOffice or Linux kernel, or simple
> build scripts. There is already make etc )
Don't you find yourself looking at the documentation each time you want to
write a loop in a Makefile ?
David Virebayre writes:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
>
>>> Next you'll say there's no need for anyone to ask whether they prefer
>>> vi or emacs... ;-)
>
>> Of course *real* programmers use ed. It is the standard editor[1].
>
> *Real* programmers use butterfiles [1].
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
>> Next you'll say there's no need for anyone to ask whether they prefer
>> vi or emacs... ;-)
> Of course *real* programmers use ed. It is the standard editor[1].
*Real* programmers use butterfiles [1].
[1] http://xkcd.com/378/
David.
_
On 16 June 2010 16:00, Michael Snoyman wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Ivan Miljenovic
> wrote:
>>
>> Next you'll say there's no need for anyone to ask whether they prefer
>> vi or emacs... ;-)
>>
> Of course *real* programmers use ed. It is the standard editor[1].
> Michael
> [1] h
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Ivan Miljenovic
wrote:
> On 16 June 2010 15:45, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
> > * aditya siram [2010-06-15 19:47:37-0400]
> >> Hi all,
> >> Haskell is a great language and in a lot of ways it still hasn't found a
> >> niche, but that's part of what is great about it.
On 16 June 2010 15:45, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
> * aditya siram [2010-06-15 19:47:37-0400]
>> Hi all,
>> Haskell is a great language and in a lot of ways it still hasn't found a
>> niche, but that's part of what is great about it.
>>
>> But I wanted to ask people are more experienced with Haskell
* aditya siram [2010-06-15 19:47:37-0400]
> Hi all,
> Haskell is a great language and in a lot of ways it still hasn't found a
> niche, but that's part of what is great about it.
>
> But I wanted to ask people are more experienced with Haskell - what kinds of
> problems is it unsuited for? Have y
Hi Aditya Siram,
- maybe shell scripting: running ghci takes longer than starting bash.
Compiling is not always an option because executables are bigger than
shell scripts or C executables
Haskell could be the wrong choice if
- an existing solution exists which does the job and you know you'
Hi all,
Haskell is a great language and in a lot of ways it still hasn't found a
niche, but that's part of what is great about it.
But I wanted to ask people are more experienced with Haskell - what kinds of
problems is it unsuited for? Have you ever regretted using it for something?
Meaning if yo
35 matches
Mail list logo
