4 ms·
LYAH might not be serious or idiomatic, but maybe that's why it works - well it worked for me anyway. Its lighthearted but that makes a great first contact with
by naradaellis 16y ago
LYAH might not be serious or idiomatic, but maybe that's why it works - well it worked for me anyway. Its lighthearted but that makes a great first contact with the language, for some audiences anyway.
I personally did most of LYAH and then hit RWH (subsequently, I found the first few chapters of RWH were boring and slow in comparison to how the same topics were introduced in LYAH).
- jrockway 16y agoBut would you, after reading his description of applicative functors, notice that you should use it while you're in the middle of programming? I don't think so. I think all you get is the ability to write definitions for <$> and <∗> on the blackboard, which is better than nothing, but in the end, useless. RWH shows you when you apply all those things with weird names, rather than just showing you how to define them and come up with contrived examples. Anyway... good reading? Yes. Actively harmful? Nope. The absolute best way to learn Haskell with the intent to write programs in Haskell? Nope.