[Haskell-cafe] Re: Are you a Haskell expert? [How easy is it to
hire Haskell programmers]
lazycat.manatee at gmail.com
Sat Jul 3 05:57:33 EDT 2010
Andrew Coppin <andrewcoppin at btinternet.com> writes:
> 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. ;-)
> So let me rephrase that: RWH isn't as good as I was hoping it would be. Still, since I haven't
> written anything better myself, I guess I don't get to criticise...
> In any case, surely the Typeclassopedia would be a far better place to comprehend Applicative?
>> 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 more libraries :-)
> 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?
Because we need to reuse those existing high-quality C library, such as
Because so many people into their's efforts to these C library,
it's really unnecessary re-implement those *huge* C library by Haskell.
C binding perhaps not the perfect way, but it's cheapest way to fix your
Don't tell me you want spend 10 years build Haskell Purely Graphics
Toolkit even you just want do some GUI program. ;-)
IMO, C is best way to handle hardware detail, that's the another reason
need C binding...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe