4 ms·
This is a very valid consideration. At the least, Haskell is much faster than Python, the language itself is not that complicated (learning a whole new ecosyst
by nequo 3y ago
This is a very valid consideration.
At the least, Haskell is much faster than Python, the language itself is not that complicated (learning a whole new ecosystem is a different story), FP might lend itself better to translating physics into code, and some elements of it carry over to other languages, for example, type classes and Rust’s traits.
- petemir 3y ago> and some elements of it carry over to other languages, for example, type classes and Rust’s traits. Add react to the list
- acchow 3y ago> the language itself is not that complicated I find Haskell quite complicated, involving abstract concepts you would likely not consciously encounter in other languages (lenses, monad transformers, free monads, etc).
- nequo 3y agoLenses and monad transformers are libraries, not part of the language. It doesn't look like the book uses them, so you don't need to understand them in order to follow it: https://nostarch.com/learn-physics-functional-programming https://nostarch.com/learn-physics-functional-programming
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- itishappy 3y agoIt doesn't need to be. You can do so much with just data declarations and typeclasses. https://www.simplehaskell.org/ https://www.simplehaskell.org/ (disclaimer: not a huge fan of the sight design, but I fully support the concept)