2 ms·
"SICP in Miranda" would prepare reader for type system. So the reader of that imaginary version of SICP wouldn't encounter those roadblocks. And those who read
by thesz 15y ago
"SICP in Miranda" would prepare reader for type system. So the reader of that imaginary version of SICP wouldn't encounter those roadblocks. And those who read Learn You A Haskell don't encounter ones.
- llimllib 15y agoI challenge both of those assertions. I haven't done LYAH, because I was learning haskell before it existed, but I did nearly every available haskell tutorial when I was learning. As soon as you step out of bounds, you find strange corners of the type system. It's quite a complex beast, and many of the error messages are cryptic at best.
- thesz 15y agoI had two colleagues who done LYAH and one who attacked a program with type level programming without LYAH (because of LYAH non-existense at the moment). The first two didn't asked me or my colleague about anything type system related too often. After month or so of on-off work on his project one of them finished a complex translator from CPU description into VHDL. The one who studied Haskell without LYAH did asked us. I attribute it to complexity of program he worked on. My experience allows me to remain confirmed that proper exposure to Haskell type system greatly lessen associated burden. I should note that we didn't encounter many errors in our Haskell code. Much less than in code in Java or C#.
- llimllib 15y agoAn alternative solution: I'm thick! It's consistent with the evidence.