[Haskell-cafe] Investing in languages (Was: What is your favourite Haskell "aha" moment?)

[PY]

I am afraid that it can lead to flame again, but F# has super-capacity: 
you can check measuring units, type providers, computation expressions, 
active patterns, static/dynamic types constraints, constraints on 
existing method, etc... It's clean, borrows some ideas from Haskell, 
some are original and Haskell borrows them (but with worse 
implementation). IMHO for children teaching to FP F# is the best. Even 
more, currently C# also has a lot of FP features 
(https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/proposals/patterns.md#arithmetic-simplification 
-- is not it super easy and beauty?). Rust is more low level: you should 
think about memory "management", OOP has some problems... And serious 
argument for children teaching: salary trends (joke sure) :-) But you 
can compare salary in F# and Haskell, for example - people often choice 
language after check current salaries in the market. Also F# is more 
focused on realistic tasks and business value. It lacks performance, UWP 
yet (but in progress)... To feel how F# is sexy compare Web application 
written in Websharper and in any Haskell framework. Haskell is beauty 
but I'm afraid its fate unfortunately will be the same as one of Common 
Lisp, NetBSD, etc - it's ground for ideas and experiments and has 
disputable design. Also it's more-more difficult to teach children to 
Haskell than to F#...

IMHO is general to teach FP is more easy than to teach OOP if FP is not 
Haskell (some language which targets more eager/efficient/dynamic/real 
goals instead of abstract types playing).

12.07.2018 13:28, Vanessa McHale wrote:
> I wouldn't say Rust has a large capacity for FP. I am not familiar with
> F#. The thing that makes FP infeasible in Rust is not the lack of purity
> but rather the fact that affine types make it difficult to treat
> functions as first-class values.
>
>
> On 07/12/2018 01:40 AM, Brett Gilio wrote:
>> Tony,
>>
>> I am curious on your attitude towards multi-paradigm and ML-like
>> languages. I agree that functional programming is easily the better of
>> the bundle in many forms of application logic and elegance (which is
>> why I have come to love Scheme and Haskell), but do you see any room
>> for those languages like F# or Rust which have large capacities for FP
>> but are either functional-first (but not pure) or a hybrid?
>>
>> Brett Gilio
>>
>> On 07/12/2018 01:35 AM, Tony Morris wrote:
>>>    I used to teach undergrad OOP nonsense. I have been teaching FP for 15
>>> years. [^1]
>>>
>>> The latter is *way* easier. Existing programmers are more difficult than
>>> children, but still way easier to teach FP than all the other stuff.
>>>
>>> [^1]: Canberra anyone? https://qfpl.io/posts/2018-canberra-intro-to-fp/
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/12/2018 04:23 PM, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>>>> Am 11.07.2018 um 16:36 schrieb Damian Nadales:
>>>>> I speak only from my own narrow perspective. I'd say programming is
>>>>> hard, but functional programming is harder.
>>>> Actually it's pretty much the opposite, I hear from teachers.
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe that's why Java replaced Haskell in some universities
>>>>> curricula
>>>> The considerations are marketable skills.
>>>> A considerable fraction of students is looking at the curriculum and
>>>> at job offers, and if they find that the lists don't match, they will
>>>> go to another university.
>>>> Also, industry keeps lobbying for teaching skills that they can use.
>>>> Industry can give money to universities so this gives them influence
>>>> on the curriculum (and only if they get time to talk the topic over
>>>> with the dean). This aspect can vary considerably between countries,
>>>> depending on how much money the universities tend to acquire from
>>>> industry.
>>>>
>>>>> https://chrisdone.com/posts/dijkstra-haskell-java. For some reason
>>>>> most programmers I know are not scared of learning OO, but they fear
>>>>> functional programming.
>>>> Programmers were *very* scared of OO in the nineties. It took roughly
>>>> a decade or two (depending on where you put the starting point) to get
>>>> comfortable with OO.
>>>>
>>>>     I think the reason might be that OO concepts
>>>>> like inheritance and passing messages between objects are a bit more
>>>>> concrete and easier to grasp (when you present toy examples at least).
>>>> OO is about how to deal with having to pack everything into its own
>>>> class (and how to arrange stuff into classes).
>>>> Functional is about how to deal with the inability to update. Here,
>>>> the functional camp actually has the easier job, because you can just
>>>> tell people to just write code that creates new data objects and get
>>>> over with it. Performance concerns can be handwaved away by saying
>>>> that the compiler is hyper-aggressive, and "you can look at the
>>>> intermediate code if you suspect the compiler is the issue".
>>>> (Functional is a bit similar to SQL here, but the SQL optimizers are
>>>> much less competent than GHC at detecting optimization opportunities.)
>>>>
>>>>> Then you have design patterns, which have intuitive names and give
>>>>> some very general guidelines that one can try after reading them (and
>>>>> add his/her own personal twist). I doubt people can read the Monad
>>>>> laws and make any sense out of them at the first try.
>>>> That's true, but much of the misconceptions around monads from the
>>>> first days have been cleared up.
>>>> But yes the monad laws are too hard to read. OTOH you won't be able to
>>>> read the Tree code in the JDK without the explanations either.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>>> To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
>>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>>> Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>> To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>> Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>> Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20180712/3eaf72f4/attachment.html>