[Haskell wikibook] Re: Splitting of "More on Datatypes"
apfelmus at quantentunnel.de
Wed May 12 04:53:29 EDT 2010
Daniel Mlot wrote:
> Heinrich Apfelmus wrote:
>> I concur. In my opinion, the second part about generalized folds and
>> maps does not even belong to the beginner's track; it should be moved to
>> a chapter "Generic Programming" in the "Fun With Types" section.
> In that case, the part about "Trees" would stay more or less where it is
> now, while the final sections would be moved forward to "Fun With
> Types/Generic Programming", which would replace the existing red link to
> "Datatype algebra"?
(Generic programming = doing things 'generically' for many data types,
like generalizing the fold function to every data type.)
>> My vision for the 'Haskell Basics' section is to present a minimal
>> subset of the Haskell syntax and language that still enables people to
>> write pretty much any program they want. This way, readers don't have to
>> wade through all the syntactic variety before getting to the core
> I have a few doubts about your subset, though. Firstly, even if you are
> probably thinking of a full-scale reassembling of the modules and
> chapters that might nullify my concerns, I wonder if a minimal subset
> which "enables people to write pretty much any program they want"
> wouldn't cause too much material to be placed in a single book
> segment/chapter, in detriment of the other chapters in the Beginner's
True, the Beginner's track could lose one segment, but that's not
necessarily bad; the number of segments is not set in stone, after all.
That said, I envision a separation like this:
* Haskell Basics => write any functionality
* Elementary Haskell => write idiomatic Haskell code, full syntax
* Intermediate Haskell => write libraries, i.e. modules and type classes
So, Haskell Basics is really just a subset of what a full Haskell
programmer should know, but it's enough to write small programs in a
rather limited style that can nonetheless express pretty much anything.
For example, I imagine that Haskell Basics teaches only
squares n = map square [1..n]
square x = x ^ 2
while a full Haskell programmer would write this as
squares n = map (^2) [1..n]
> Also, with regards to the list-related material, pattern matching looks
> like such an integral part of day-to-day Haskell usage it seems natural
> to present initial examples without getting into details of how it
> actually works. Of course this is just an impression from a newbie
> haskeller, and that there may be conceptual problems I might not be
> giving due weight to - for instance, it could well be that many people,
> after seeing pattern matching in action without a proper explanation,
> think it is some kind of magic and develop wrong ideas about how the
> language works (such a situation could make a good reason for
> stimulating "whole-meal programming").
There's nothing wrong with pattern matching. If anything, the problem is
this: With pattern matching and recursion, you can define any function
on lists. But then, it is also tempting to do exactly that and forgo the
vocabulary of functions offered in the Prelude, at the detriment of good
For instance, consider the following task: you are given a file that has
a number on each line and you have to add them all up. A direct,
recursive, and utterly unintelligible solution would be to go character
by character and accumulate the sum
example :: String -> Int
example s = go 0 "" s
go sum 0  = sum
go sum number (c:cs)
| c == '\n' = go (sum + read number) 0 cs
| isDigit c = go sum (number ++ [c]) cs
whereas the proper Haskell way to think about this task is
example = sum . map read . lines
Okay, I created this example for this very purpose, but it does happen
"Memory usage problem"
(read the original question and my reply)
> Finally, a note about exploration of "many Prelude functions involving
> lists". One of the things I enjoyed about the initial modules of the
> book was how it presented the essential concepts with minimal "clutter"
> of alternative syntax and, specially, systematic study of the standard
> library. I realize that this slower, less practical style probably does
> not work for everyone, and is occasionally overdone (for instance, by
> waiting an eternity to introduce type classes), but still I feel such an
> approach has merit - and furthermore, it would help to distinguish our
> basic modules from, say, LYAH. There are a few subtler ways of working
> with Prelude in the book, which is already done semi-intentionally in
> some parts of the book, such as slipping new Prelude functions in
> examples and exercises and stimulating readers to be curious (for
> instance, by using GHCi to immediately query the type signature of every
> and each unknown function they happen to meet).
In the light of the above, conveying a good grasp on the vocabulary is
necessary, but I agree that a diligent study of standard libraries is
not necessarily a good idea. The thing is that the reader can only
memorize so many things at once, and it would be a waste to squander
this on uninteresting syntactic variations and library functions that he
doesn't need right now.
I imagine the best way to solve this is to present a subset of the
Prelude in style of a "cheat sheet", i.e. as documentation that the
reader should consult whenever he needs new vocabulary.
Astonishingly, such a thing does not exist yet, at least not how I
imagine it. There is
* Bernie Pope - A Tour of the Haskell Prelude
* GHC doc - Prelude
but the former has no thematic categories like the latter while the
latter does not restrict itself to the Haskell Basics subset. I've given
some private lessons recently and I was surprised to find that it's
really tricky to find the show function if you only know that you're
looking for something that will convert stuff into a String .
More information about the Wikibook