3 ms·
You shouldn’t need to know Haskell. Don’t pay attention to all the syntax. If you are curious you can take a look at Applicative Functor. This is
by gtani 15y ago
You shouldn’t need to know Haskell.
Don’t pay attention to all the syntax.
If you are curious you can take a look at Applicative Functor.
This is a nice, whirlwind tour, maybe the opening benchmarks and jab at node are superfluous. All haskell tutorials hit the speedbump of how to bootstrap haskell understanding, where to make forward references and when to say "Trust me" but code shown here: do blocks, ($), <- and return would be confusing if you didn't know any haskell
- yogsototh 15y agoShould I add a link to this article[^1] for people confused by the Haskell syntax? The opening is not really an attack. This is the way I myself started to be interested in Haskell web programming. [^1]: http://blog.ezyang.com/2011/11/how-to-read-haskell/ http://blog.ezyang.com/2011/11/how-to-read-haskell/
- gtani 15y agoYah, maybe just add links at bottom: LYAH, Applicative Functor wiki page. Or maybe mention one syntax feature, IO's and do-blocks, and say "return" and "<-" just kick things into and out of IO's, loosely speaking. Just don't say IO's are like burritos ;-} You could also say, for anybody that's looked at lisps, *ML, F#, scala, erlang, the syntax isn't too bad, and for anybody that knows rails, they'll recognize the same REST'y MVC layers/abstractions. I gather the target audience is folks using dynamically typed languages.