3 ms·
If you already know SML or OCaml, you'll pick up Haskell easier, but if you don't know them and want to learn Haskell, you're not taking a shortcut by learning
by qbrass 10y ago
If you already know SML or OCaml, you'll pick up Haskell easier, but if you don't know them and want to learn Haskell, you're not taking a shortcut by learning SML or OCaml first.
- dtornabene 10y agoIts whatever works for every person, but I'll throw in my own experiences and say, that by taking a detour into Ocaml I was actually greatly aided in understanding Haskell. And that having spent a great deal of time with a number of Lisps. I had grabbed a copy of RWH, dug into it, been a little defeated at first, took a studious detour through RWOcaml and have returned to Haskell with a clearer view. Again, to each their own, my own experience was actually the opposite of your statement.
- eatonphil 10y agoAlthough I happened to learn OCaml first, I am actually arguing that learning SML is a better way to learn the concepts behind tremendously more complex and less user-friendly languages like OCaml and Haskell. I don't know if I'd say it's a shortcut, but it's pretty natural to learn by studying a simpler (perhaps historic) topic before studying a more modern and complex one.