4 ms·

I've tried to articulate this through pointing out that the documentation culture of Haskell is lacking and indeed I've been called "willingly ignorant, and pro

by spion 4y ago

I've tried to articulate this through pointing out that the documentation culture of Haskell is lacking and indeed I've been called "willingly ignorant, and proud to state that fact publicly" IMO thats really the only remaining problem of Haskell. Most of its documentation is just plain terrible. Rust is probably more difficult to learn as a language, yet the documentation culture is so awesome that one can power through.

kqr 4y ago
A large part of this (and why you will find it hard to find Haskell developers who admit the state of the documentation is lacking) is that documentation isn't bad -- it's specifically apprentice-level documentation for specific libraries/use-cases that is bad. In other words, journeyman users who are experienced in "following the types" will find plenty of really high-quality documentation. Total novices who need an introduction to the language will also find high-quality material (though this is more of a recent development). However, once you're past the novice stage and at the apprentice level where you want to accomplish something specific using some libraries, there's nothing for you there. You have to ask someone at the next journeyman level to sit with you and guide you through following the types. That is limiting, and under-recognised, I think.
josephcsible 4y ago
By "documentation", do you mean introductions/tutorials, or references? I'll agree the former could use some work, but I find the latter to be excellent.
- spion 4y ago
  I find the reference is not really great. Some of it stems from the fact that function argument names aren't really present in the documentation. Most languages that have excellent documentation will explicitly state what each argument is, something to the point of mind numbing repetitiveness. Often the documentation is written in a way that allows you to start reading anywhere and still understand everything, which is less common with Haskell

by spion 4y ago

kqr 4y ago

A large part of this (and why you will find it hard to find Haskell developers who admit the state of the documentation is lacking) is that documentation isn't bad -- it's specifically apprentice-level documentation for specific libraries/use-cases that is bad. In other words, journeyman users who are experienced in "following the types" will find plenty of really high-quality documentation. Total novices who need an introduction to the language will also find high-quality material (though this is more of a recent development). However, once you're past the novice stage and at the apprentice level where you want to accomplish something specific using some libraries, there's nothing for you there. You have to ask someone at the next journeyman level to sit with you and guide you through following the types. That is limiting, and under-recognised, I think.

josephcsible 4y ago

By "documentation", do you mean introductions/tutorials, or references? I'll agree the former could use some work, but I find the latter to be excellent.

spion 4y ago
I find the reference is not really great. Some of it stems from the fact that function argument names aren't really present in the documentation. Most languages that have excellent documentation will explicitly state what each argument is, something to the point of mind numbing repetitiveness. Often the documentation is written in a way that allows you to start reading anywhere and still understand everything, which is less common with Haskell