[Haskell-cafe] Coding katas/dojos and functional programming introduction
Gautier DI FOLCO
gautier.difolco at gmail.com
Thu Apr 16 22:47:41 UTC 2015
2015-04-15 22:40 GMT+00:00 Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org>:
> Just clarify, this is a reference to the fable of the blind men and the
I obviously lack of culture, thanks for the precision.
What you think it is like will depend on how you approach it.
Exactly, each paradigms I have learned (OOP, FP, Logic, Actor, Data-Flow)
seemed to be a giant mess until I found a good approach and see a big and
I miss a approach to broadcast it for FP.
2015-04-16 5:24 GMT+00:00 Raphael Gaschignard <dasuraga at gmail.com>:
> Is this aimed for FP beginners who already know something like Java? I
> think the thing to do here would be to come up with some tasks that are
> genuinely tedious to write in a Java-esque (or Pascal-like) language, and
> then present how FP solutions are simpler.
> I'm of the opinion that FP succeeds not just because of the tenants of
> FP, but because most of the languages are terse and have code that is
> "pretty". Showing some quick things involving quick manipulation of tuples
> (basically a bunch of list processing) could show that things don't have to
> be complicated with a bunch of anonymous classes.
That's currently that we tend to do, but these are too "toy examples", they
doesn't stick to the day-to-day problems.
> Anyways, I think the essential thing is to present a problem that they,
> as programmers, have already experienced. The big one being "well these two
> functions are *almost* the same but the inner-part of the function has
> different logic" (basically, looking at things like map). Open up the world
> of possibilities. It's not things that are only possible in Haskell/Scheme
> (after all, all of these languages are turing complete so..), but they're
> so much easier to write in these languages.
2015-04-16 18:41 GMT+00:00 Kyle Marek-Spartz <kyle.marek.spartz at gmail.com>:
> A little out of date, and unsure what level it is aimed at, but there
> are a few sets ready to go:
I totally forgot the last one, but I think it doesn't emphasize enough on
the type part.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe