4 ms·
It definitely depends on the algorithm. It also depends on the language. A lot of the difficulty of learning Haskell, for example, is in the type system. A dyna
by edifice 16y ago
It definitely depends on the algorithm. It also depends on the language. A lot of the difficulty of learning Haskell, for example, is in the type system. A dynamically typed FP lang like Clojure has a shallower learning curve.
- iustin 16y agoIt is true, but it's also unfortunate—I think a lot of Haskell's strengths come from its type system. So what makes Haskell worth learning also makes it hard to learn Haskell :)
- silentbicycle 16y agoHaskell's type system is unfortunate, because for most programmers, 80+% of the benefit comes from how it utterly nails the basics (checking variant type coverage in pattern matching, typeclasses), but the language community is focused on the cutting edge top .003%, because that's where the research papers are.
- strait 16y agoAfter working through a few of my own Haskell projects, I eventually found the type system disappointing. A better design would have made it even more sophisticated and harder to learn, IMO. That's the price to pay for being purely functional. Instead, I felt that certain design trade-offs were made, which in effect, make the type system awkward and tend to lead to inflexibility in writing ambitious, comprehensive programs.
- silentbicycle 16y agoAny examples you care to share?
- nickik 16y agoIit's also unfortunate - I think a lot of Clojure's strengths come from its macro system. So what makes Clojure worth learning also makes it hard to learn Clojure :) There is stuff to learn in every language :)