[Haskell-cafe] Why Haskell is beautiful to the novice

[M Farkas-Dyck]

On 31/08/2015 at 13:28:00 +1200, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> 
> On 29/08/2015, at 4:17 pm, M Farkas-Dyck <strake888 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Actually we ought to start with semiconductor physics, VLSI
> > fabrication, and such.
> > cuz that's how current computers work.
> 
> I did start a computer architecture lecture once
> with a 10 minute explanation of what a field effect
> transistor does.  The physicist in me was only partly
> appeased by the consideration that this was all the
> students were _ever_ going to be told about what was
> really going on underneath.  Some of the students
> thanked me for it.  Some,  didn't.

My comment was sarcastic actually. I mean we can teach computer science agnostic of particular implementations, at least to some degree.

Computer architecture, tho, is to my knowledge largely due to implementational constraints, so it seems quite appropriate to teach the foundational technologies at least briefly.

> As for Python, remember that the people who are praising
> Python as an initial language are probably comparing it
> with Java or C++.

I could compare Java and COBOL; it wouldn't make Java worthy.