[Haskell-cafe] introducing Maybe at managing level

[David Virebayre]

The link to LYAH that John provided,
http://learnyouahaskell.com/making-our-own-types-and-typeclasses ,
doesn't mention monad at all.

Laziness is mentionned only once while explaining recursive types, but
you could omit that line.

Now Algebraic is mentionned 6 times, but if you're afraid it might
scare someone, why not replace it by 'Haskell' ( thus, Algebraic data
type becomes Haskell data type, for the purpose of your introduction )


2013/3/29 Luc TAESCH <luc.taesch at gmail.com>:
> Thanks John.
>
> I was indeed thinking to Maybe and the monad bindings,
> and  LYAH, or http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/error-handling.html
>
> the problems is I cannot uses these links in isolation ( to a Non
> haskellers) because they mention Monads, Lazyness, Algebric types, all this
> vocabularies that side track a beginner, ( or a manager ;-)
>
> then all I want to show is the generic concept ( powerpoint level)
> of how a forest of (non core) case can be streamlined in one major case (
> the good outcome) , and all the rest ( exceptions in a non technical sense)
> are catched by the maybe monad, without sidetracking the readability of the
> code .
>
> I saw this somewhere on the blogosphere, but cannot remember where..
>
> this is management level, and this is even worse than beginners techies,
> because they derails very quickly when talking "details"
>
>
> --------------
> Luc
> be.linkedin.com/in/luctaesch/
> Envoyé avec Sparrow
>
> Le vendredi 29 mars 2013 à 06:47, John Lato a écrit :
>
> In FP, I think this sort of problem is generally handled via algebraic data
> types rather than exceptions.  In particular this directly addresses the
> issue of "exceptions don't necessarily shout themselves out", since the
> compiler warns you if you've missed a case.
>
> They sound mathy, but algebraic data types are actually a pretty simple
> concept.  I think the "Learn You a Haskell" explanation is decent:
> http://learnyouahaskell.com/making-our-own-types-and-typeclasses
>
> Provided I understand the context properly, actually using exceptions for
> this sort of issue would be extremely rare practice.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:21 AM, luc taesch <luc.taesch at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I was looking for some link introducing the way FP/ Haskell handles errors
> and Exceptions.
>
> This is for a non FP Guy, and ideally withought scaring them with Monads and
> category theory :-).
>
> for the background :
>
> the guy said : As I mentioned in another thread in banking (in particular)
> it is the exception processing that often dominates the functionality of a
> system - as the core concept is generally very straightforward. Developing
> for "exception handling" (not in a Java/C++ sense) is a tricky thing - as
> the exception don't necessarily shout themselves out - and are often why we
> have large misunderstood legacy systems which are hard to replace.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>