[Haskell-beginners] sometimes Haskell isn't what you want
dennis.raddle at gmail.com
Tue Sep 11 14:16:15 CEST 2012
I went briefly to Python but guess what? I I U-turned right back to
Haskell. Because there is nothing like the consistent documentation and
well-thought-out libraries of Haskell. There is nothing else like the help
from #haskell or this list. I used to program in Python. I went back to it
for one day (yesterday) and that was enough to make me realize how
unpleasant its inconsistencies, inconsistent documentation, awkwardnesses,
etc. Maybe Haskell will make me think harder but at least the whole
language and supporting documentation and the whole community has "got my
back." Haskell is a gift and I'm not throwing it away.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Jay Sulzberger <jays at panix.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2012, Dennis Raddle <dennis.raddle at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sadly, I've decided Haskell is not the right language for my current
>> project. Python is better. I need to hack together data, and strict typing
>> is getting in the way. Most of my algorithms are better served with
>> imperative/mutable-data. I learned a lot about Haskell trying to do it,
>> my knowledge of the language is not quiet good enough and I feel like I'm
>> fighting the language. Python is better. For now.
> I always recommend Scheme.
> It is like Haskell in one respect:
> The Scheme Tribes keep the Ritual and the Law of Lambda.
> Scheme is different from Haskell in two respects:
> We Lispers do all our coding under the Great Functor, the Great
> Functor from Code to Objects in the Lisp World.
> For most Scheme systems, the Type Sub-System calculates less at
> compile time.
> Robert Harper has a new textbook available at
> and here is a useful notice of the book
> ad missing the Great Functor: See remarks on "symbols" in the
> section 32.3 on page 321, and the discussion of observational
> equivalence in section 47.1 on page 498. A Lisper reading these
> sections might say "Ah, the Great Functor is worthy of study by
> New Type Theorists too. We Lispers consider a symbol to be a
> symbol first, and nothing else until you pass across one or more
> functors, and then the symbol might become many different
> ad "dynamic typing" vs "static typing": Professor Harper's blog
> deals with this. I think the claim made, that "dynamic typing"
> is a special case of "static typing", is, when sympathetically
> read, right.
> Beginners mailing list
> Beginners at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Beginners