[Haskell-cafe] Re: Are you a Haskell expert? [How easy is it to hire Haskell programmers]

Andy Stewart 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
GTK+ library.
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
*real* problem.

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...


  -- Andy

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list