[Haskell-cafe] IO is a bad example for Monads

[Conal Elliott]

> I'm not sure there are many of us left pursuing that vision.

P.S. I'd love to learn otherwise.

On Dec 11, 2007 10:02 AM, Conal Elliott <conal at conal.net> wrote:

>
> > This is at odds with the notion, popular on this list and other haskell
> forums, that pure functional programming is the future.
>
> Perhaps a nit-pick, but I don't think we're talking about *pure*
> functional programming.  I think we're talking about a mixture of functional
> and imperative programming in a functional language.  Haskell offers a
> cleaner separation between the two than, say, Scheme or ML.  The idea of
> pure functional programming (no explicit IO) for getting real things done is
> much more of a lunatic fringe vision, and I'm not sure there are many of us
> left pursuing that vision.
>
>   - Conal
>
>
>
> On Dec 11, 2007 9:34 AM, Tim Newsham <newsham at lava.net> wrote:
>
> > I haven't been following this thread closely, but would it be rude to
> > suggest
> > > that someone who doesn't want to put the effort into learning the
> > (admittedly
> > > difficult) concepts that Haskell embodies shouldn't be using the
> > language?
> > > Haskell was never intended to be The Next Big Popular Language.  It
> > was
> > > intended to be a purely functional language for people who want to use
> > purely
> > > functional languages and who are willing to learn new concepts if it
> > enables
> > > them to program in that  style.
> >
> > This is at odds with the notion, popular on this list and other
> > haskell forums, that pure functional programming is the future.
> >
> > Why is it that every time the topic of teaching basic concepts in
> > an easier way comes up there are always two or three replies that
> > say "should we bother?  lets filter out the idiots?"  These are
> > pointless and counterproductive.  Whether or not you like the idea
> > of lesser entities sullying your private, pure, functional programming
> > language, there are going to be a lot more people learning this
> > language, and there will be people trying to make it easier for them
> > to learn it.
> >
> > > whatever.  That said, of course we should strive to have better
> > teaching
> > > materials, but there are a number of good IO/monad tutorials on the
> > web.
> > [...]
> > > because it enables us to write programs more effectively (in many
> > cases, at
> > > least) than we can in other languages, but the learning curve is steep
> > --
> > > there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
> >
> > Many of the best resources for learning Haskell are still academic
> > papers published by language researchers.   We've still got a long
> > long way to go...  Sure there's no shortcut to learning difficult
> > concepts, but right now its more of a nature hike than a freeway...
> >
> > > Mike
> >
> > Tim Newsham
> > http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/ <http://www.thenewsh.com/%7Enewsham/>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> > Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20071211/405b564f/attachment.htm