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

[Daniel Fischer]

On Saturday 03 July 2010 12:12:56, Thomas Davie wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2010, at 11:04, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 7/3/10 05:57 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
> >> Agreed. So let me rephrase: Why should _every_ Haskell library
> >> involve C? ;-)
> >
> > Who says they do, or should?
>
> Dons rather implied it... The suggestion is that someone who hasn't used
> hsc2hs is an inexperienced Haskeller... I'd bet though that there are
> many *extremely* experienced haskellers who have never once in their
> life written a C binding.

Andrew Coppin:
> > Who says they do, or should?
>
> Don, a few emails ago.

I think you missed a small detail there.

> ivan.miljenovic:
> > >> Hmm, interesting. Applicative and Traversable are two classes I've
> > >> never   used and don't really understand the purpose of. I have no
> > >> idea what hsc2hs is. I keep hearing finger trees mentioned, but
> > >> only in connection to papers that I can't access. 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 :-)
> >
> > Knowing about something /= knowing how to use it.  I own and have read
> > RWH, but I've never had to use hsc2hs, or Applicative, etc.
>
> 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 :-)

dons was replying to *Ivan Miljenovic* here (with a smiley to remove all 
doubt), he was teasing [is that the entirely correct word?] Ivan a bit.

>
> But in this case, the OP didn't even know *about* the something.

That, however, is indeed an indicator (not infallible of course).
After a few years of Haskell coding, it's very unlikely that you've never 
heard of those tools.

Cheers,
Daniel