3 ms·
That attitude is not representative of the community. Some people would like more documentation and some are content, but either way it's still Haskell and the
by efnx 10y ago
That attitude is not representative of the community. Some people would like more documentation and some are content, but either way it's still Haskell and the types get you very close to full understanding.
- moomin 10y agoThis is only true after you've fully grokked the implications of the types. And, IME, that takes a long time. To give you an example, I spent ages trying to figure out how to create an X. X was a Monad of A. Solution's obvious now...
- greenrd 10y agoYes, it's a mistake to believe that the type class instances of a type are always going to be advanced details that can be skipped until later. They might be, or they might not.
- efnx 10y agoExamples would help in that case, but there would still be much confusion simply from not understanding Monads (enough to write a computation in that one).