4 ms·

Write you a Haskell (2015)

151 points by myth_drannon 10y ago

Dangeranger 10y ago
It seems that development on the book has slowed or halted. Is the author planning to continue? This sounds like a rich and interesting subject that I would enjoy following through to the end. Another book I've found helpful for Haskell is: Haskell Programming from First Principles (http://haskellbook.com/ http://haskellbook.com/)
- ffreire 10y ago
  Simon Peyton Jones' seminal work "Implementation of Functional Programming Languages" is available free of charge now that it's out of print[0]. If you haven't read it yet I'd highly encourage it! [0]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/the-implementation-of-functional-programming-languages/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/the-imp...
  - Dangeranger 10y ago
    Thank you, this is a good resource and alternative in the mean time.
  - vajrabum 10y ago
    Implementing Functional Languages: A Tutorial is also available and is somewhat more accessible https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/implementing-functional-languages-a-tutorial/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/impleme...
- psiclops 10y ago
  AFAIK, Haskell Programming Book is one of the best resources currently. I'm planning on buying it soon
  - throwaway7645 10y ago
    I have a copy but that is about programming Haskell and not about writing a functional language in Haskell. Also, it is still darn difficult to read (beginning with the lambda calculus). A lot of people absolutely love it though.
- cardiffspaceman 10y ago
  The next 700 Haskell implementations The scope of the chapters in this book is huge. I have written one or two functional language compilers as hobby projects, and I have attempted to acquaint myself with the literature in the process. It has got to be a challenge to create a tutorial sequence of chapters that builds to a satisfying state at each stage. Especially on this topic, which I believe covers almost everything we know about compiling and executing code. The rest of it would maybe require an implementation of Agda or something.
nilved 10y ago
This website needs some work. If you're as confused as I was, try scrolling down.
amelius 10y ago
If someone could write a Haskell with a simpler build system, and better internal documentation so it becomes more "hackable", that would be great. The structure of GHC seems more complicated than necessary, as the first comment of [1] states. GHC seems much too monolithic for a functional programming environment. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/3jq3cu/hacking_on_ghc_is_not_that_hard/ https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/3jq3cu/hacking_on_...
- macawfish 10y ago
  I actually don't know how much my frustration relates to the hackability of the ghc. I'd LOVE to "write me a haskell". I've been trying for the last 3 days to wrap my work style around cabal/stack... It's so so so frustrating (especially on Arch Linux). This is something I come back to every 6 months or so. Ideally, I'd be able to write Haskell that compiles into concise, trimmed down, readable javascript bundles, (as you can compile OCaml with bucklescript). But I don't think it's really possible right now. Once upon a time I successfully managed to get ghcjs to compile code using a library I was interested in. It spit out a 1 MB bundle, without even doing much of anything. No thanks! Organizing a project around this system sounds not very enjoyable. Yesterday I managed to get Reason (OCaml) running, but figured out that using any existing OCaml libraries means I have to manually manage & compile them. Also, it doesn't seem like the OCaml community has nearly as many libraries as the Haskell community. It's weird to say, but I think I am spoiled by npm-based tools! As hard as it was to get used to, I actually really appreciate their hardiness. I still may end up going with OCaml/Reason and bucklescript, and just not worry about libraries. Maybe writing more functional programs will decrease my reliance on libraries in the first place, since stuff can be done so concisely. If anyone has advice about this stuff, I'd gladly take it!
  - z1mm32m4n 10y ago
    You should try PureScript! I recently started using it and I've been very pleased with the language. - the language has all the features I like about and regularly use in Haskell, but without laziness - the editor tooling is amazing; it Just Works™ in Vim. - the only work you have to do to use JavaScript libraries is annotate the types of the functions you want to use It's really nice, and I'd definitely recommend you give it a look.
eikdi_efs 10y ago
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/visulsign/e/bcc9073b93a8871a8dff279b24b7b51f http://blog.goo.ne.jp/visulsign/e/bcc9073b93a8871a8dff279b24...

151 points by myth_drannon 10y ago

It seems that development on the book has slowed or halted. Is the author planning to continue? This sounds like a rich and interesting subject that I would enjoy following through to the end. Another book I've found helpful for Haskell is: Haskell Programming from First Principles (http://haskellbook.com/ http://haskellbook.com/)

ffreire 10y ago
Simon Peyton Jones' seminal work "Implementation of Functional Programming Languages" is available free of charge now that it's out of print[0]. If you haven't read it yet I'd highly encourage it! [0]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/the-implementation-of-functional-programming-languages/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/the-imp...
- Dangeranger 10y ago
  Thank you, this is a good resource and alternative in the mean time.
- vajrabum 10y ago
  Implementing Functional Languages: A Tutorial is also available and is somewhat more accessible https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/implementing-functional-languages-a-tutorial/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/impleme...
psiclops 10y ago
AFAIK, Haskell Programming Book is one of the best resources currently. I'm planning on buying it soon
- throwaway7645 10y ago
  I have a copy but that is about programming Haskell and not about writing a functional language in Haskell. Also, it is still darn difficult to read (beginning with the lambda calculus). A lot of people absolutely love it though.
cardiffspaceman 10y ago
The next 700 Haskell implementations The scope of the chapters in this book is huge. I have written one or two functional language compilers as hobby projects, and I have attempted to acquaint myself with the literature in the process. It has got to be a challenge to create a tutorial sequence of chapters that builds to a satisfying state at each stage. Especially on this topic, which I believe covers almost everything we know about compiling and executing code. The rest of it would maybe require an implementation of Agda or something.

nilved 10y ago

This website needs some work. If you're as confused as I was, try scrolling down.

amelius 10y ago

If someone could write a Haskell with a simpler build system, and better internal documentation so it becomes more "hackable", that would be great. The structure of GHC seems more complicated than necessary, as the first comment of [1] states. GHC seems much too monolithic for a functional programming environment. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/3jq3cu/hacking_on_ghc_is_not_that_hard/ https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/3jq3cu/hacking_on_...

macawfish 10y ago
I actually don't know how much my frustration relates to the hackability of the ghc. I'd LOVE to "write me a haskell". I've been trying for the last 3 days to wrap my work style around cabal/stack... It's so so so frustrating (especially on Arch Linux). This is something I come back to every 6 months or so. Ideally, I'd be able to write Haskell that compiles into concise, trimmed down, readable javascript bundles, (as you can compile OCaml with bucklescript). But I don't think it's really possible right now. Once upon a time I successfully managed to get ghcjs to compile code using a library I was interested in. It spit out a 1 MB bundle, without even doing much of anything. No thanks! Organizing a project around this system sounds not very enjoyable. Yesterday I managed to get Reason (OCaml) running, but figured out that using any existing OCaml libraries means I have to manually manage & compile them. Also, it doesn't seem like the OCaml community has nearly as many libraries as the Haskell community. It's weird to say, but I think I am spoiled by npm-based tools! As hard as it was to get used to, I actually really appreciate their hardiness. I still may end up going with OCaml/Reason and bucklescript, and just not worry about libraries. Maybe writing more functional programs will decrease my reliance on libraries in the first place, since stuff can be done so concisely. If anyone has advice about this stuff, I'd gladly take it!
- z1mm32m4n 10y ago
  You should try PureScript! I recently started using it and I've been very pleased with the language. - the language has all the features I like about and regularly use in Haskell, but without laziness - the editor tooling is amazing; it Just Works™ in Vim. - the only work you have to do to use JavaScript libraries is annotate the types of the functions you want to use It's really nice, and I'd definitely recommend you give it a look.

eikdi_efs 10y ago

http://blog.goo.ne.jp/visulsign/e/bcc9073b93a8871a8dff279b24b7b51f http://blog.goo.ne.jp/visulsign/e/bcc9073b93a8871a8dff279b24...