[Haskell-cafe] Most used functions in hackage

[Rustom Mody]

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Casey Basichis <caseybasichis at gmail.com>wrote:

> I just ordered Mathsemantics for a hefty $2.10.
>
> Your article's were an enjoyable read and very informative.  I'll dig more
> into you blog tonight.
>
> I've read the Great Good book, Haskell school of music, and I'm working my
> way through Real World Haskell. I've also read countless blog articles on
> Haskell.
>
> With a great deal read and understood about Haskell I have no confidence
> that I can make anything in it at all.
>
> Kurt Vonnegut retyped James Joyce's work to feel a great novel under his
> fingers before writing his own.
>
> Webster knew English better than Shakespeare.  Shakespeare was a master
> of creation.
>
> To be able to create from a small core and then extend those intuitions
> with knowledge over time is to me far more effective than mastering
> language and then attempting creation.
>
> While not rigorous, getting hands on with high level practical libraries
> and working by example would have built my intuitions far faster than all
> of the countless reading and toy examples I've done.  The problem is, for
> that approach, there isn't any material for a book or insightful blog post
> to be written. Mimetics are mundane and unnecessary to those in the know.
>  The teachers seem to be unaware of how their own intuitions were formed.
>
> While learning the fundamentals my mind struggles to imagine how these
> basic concepts play into the larger picture - how would they use foldr to
> build persistent?  I don't have real answers to those questions but it's a
> constant distraction.
>
> I am certain that sitting down with a few simple examples of how to use a
> library like Persistent, without any concern as to how it works, will
> surely take me from a useless Haskeller to being able to make useful tools
> that I can use in my career as a composer.
>
> In learning Do notation the books took me through three ways of expressing
> the same thing before arriving at the sugary syntax that I will likely use
> for the next ten projects. I don't see that as building a core towards
> creation, but rather the elevation of a fetishy obsession with language.
>  Children learn the most critical words before grammar - only in language
> studies does grammar come before vocabulary.
>
> The question is what is the core knowledge that facilitates creation?
>
> That core is a mutating form.  It works from the high level downward as it
> needs to, not from the low level upward because it is thought that it
> should.  There are thousands of articles on how to use raw C++ pointers.
> One in the know knows to use smart pointers because they facilitate
> creation.
>
> I constantly read authors of blog posts say things like "I wish I had
> learned monad transformers sooner."  What is a rigorous way to prioritize
> learning the full scope of Haskell so that creative intuition is maximized?
>  How can I know that Arrows will be generally more effective than
> Category-Extras for creating things?
>
> If data mining Hackage to find the practical reality of how Haskell is
> actually being used by people who are creating complete and useful things
> is not an effective way to learn, what approach is better?
>
> Best,
> Casey
>
>
Lets say you teach the piano and two prospective students come to you.
A with much passion wants to play like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L0Rncqx1yQ
B with more focus than passion, has this ideal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu06WnXlPCY

Who do you think/feel would be more likely to succeed?
Who would you prefer to teach?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20130202/41a4f807/attachment.htm>