3 ms·

I'm sorry, could you be more specific?

_ft 14y ago
I started learning Haskell for the same reason that Peaker described. From what I understand so far, Haskell is a very high level language which lets you do more with less. One of the examples that come often is quicksort which you can write in like 3 lines: quicksort (p:xs) = (quicksort lesser) ++ [p] ++ (quicksort greater) where lesser = filter (< p) xs greater = filter (>= p) xs But the thing is you still have to understand a lot of stuff before being able to use it correctly. I think one of the most difficult (and interesting) topic would be monads, there are tons of tutorials online if you're interested on reading on it.
- xentronium 14y ago
  It's not a quicksort. It's a quasi-quicksort, which is actually not quick due to memory allocations. Here's how quicksort looks like in haskell: import Data.Vector.Generic import qualified Data.Vector.Generic.Mutable as M iqsort :: (Vector v a, Ord a) => v a -> v a iqsort = modify go where go xs | len < 2 = return () | otherwise = do p <- xs `M.read` (len `div` 2) m <- M.unstablePartition (< p) xs go $ M.slice 0 m xs go $ M.slice (m+1) (len-m-1) xs where len = M.length xs Or something like this (u-u-ugly) http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Introduction/Direct_Translation http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Introduction/Direct_Trans... At this point it's less for more. I don't understand why they chose quicksort to show off.
Peaker 14y ago
The post I replied to said: > I am programmer because I am naturally curious and because I love creative problem solving. Which is still an excellent reason to be a programmer. > What honestly pisses me off, is that these days programming is way more boring than what it used to be. Completely disagreed! He's just focusing on the wrong things. > The paradigm has shifted from low-level to high-level and as such we've lost steady, stable interfaces and systems and moved to very rapidly changing playground I was trying to say that moving from low to high level does not mean losing stable interfaces, and it doesn't mean we need to have a "rapidly changing playground".

_ft 14y ago

I started learning Haskell for the same reason that Peaker described. From what I understand so far, Haskell is a very high level language which lets you do more with less. One of the examples that come often is quicksort which you can write in like 3 lines: quicksort (p:xs) = (quicksort lesser) ++ [p] ++ (quicksort greater) where lesser = filter (< p) xs greater = filter (>= p) xs But the thing is you still have to understand a lot of stuff before being able to use it correctly. I think one of the most difficult (and interesting) topic would be monads, there are tons of tutorials online if you're interested on reading on it.

xentronium 14y ago
It's not a quicksort. It's a quasi-quicksort, which is actually not quick due to memory allocations. Here's how quicksort looks like in haskell: import Data.Vector.Generic import qualified Data.Vector.Generic.Mutable as M iqsort :: (Vector v a, Ord a) => v a -> v a iqsort = modify go where go xs | len < 2 = return () | otherwise = do p <- xs `M.read` (len `div` 2) m <- M.unstablePartition (< p) xs go $ M.slice 0 m xs go $ M.slice (m+1) (len-m-1) xs where len = M.length xs Or something like this (u-u-ugly) http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Introduction/Direct_Translation http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Introduction/Direct_Trans... At this point it's less for more. I don't understand why they chose quicksort to show off.

Peaker 14y ago

The post I replied to said: > I am programmer because I am naturally curious and because I love creative problem solving. Which is still an excellent reason to be a programmer. > What honestly pisses me off, is that these days programming is way more boring than what it used to be. Completely disagreed! He's just focusing on the wrong things. > The paradigm has shifted from low-level to high-level and as such we've lost steady, stable interfaces and systems and moved to very rapidly changing playground I was trying to say that moving from low to high level does not mean losing stable interfaces, and it doesn't mean we need to have a "rapidly changing playground".