5 ms·

> there's way too many "toy examples" out there. I am not sure what you mean. Tutorials can only deal with toy examples. Once you understand them, then you can

> there's way too many "toy examples" out there. I am not sure what you mean. Tutorials can only deal with toy examples. Once you understand them, then you can (and you should) write bigger projects. About Carmack, that's exactly what he did, he implemented Wolf3D in Haskell to have a real impression about Haskell. (Assuming you're talking about this video where he discuss functional programming for games) Aren't you just being lazy? :) Edit: that video: http://functionaltalks.org/2013/08/26/john-carmack-thoughts-on-haskell/ http://functionaltalks.org/2013/08/26/john-carmack-thoughts-...

kaoD 13y ago
I guess he's just as tired as I am of seeing (yet another) quicksort implementation in Haskell! 99% of the time I spend coding does not deal with data structures or algorithms, but basic business logic. How does Haskell perform there? I don't know, but I know Haskell's quicksort oneliners are pretty (and pretty meaningless too). I know my way around monads, I'm fluent in functional programming and grasped typeclasses... but I still can't see what's so great about Haskell beyond algorithmic beauty. I'd really like to be taught real-world-Haskell just like I was taught real-world-Lisp.
- codygman 13y ago
  http://realworldhaskell.com http://realworldhaskell.com
- bnegreve 13y ago
  Well, I would argue that this article really is an introduction to functional programming using Haskell. Most of the concepts he/she introduce are not specific to Haskell but are more or less specific to functional programming languages. But the author doesn't seem to be very well aware of that. Quoting the article: "Haskell is very different. The language uses a lot of concepts I had never heard about before." All that to say that if you already know some functional programming this probably isn't for you. Edit: clarity.
  - kaoD 13y ago
    Exactly! Don't get me wrong, I don't think that most Haskell tutorials are inherently bad, I just couldn't find a good introduction to Haskell targeted at programmers which are already familiar with functional programming concepts.
dorkrawk 13y ago
| Aren't you just being lazy? :) I can't tell if this is a functional programming joke or not...
- bnegreve 13y ago
  ahah, no. That was unintentional.

kaoD 13y ago

I guess he's just as tired as I am of seeing (yet another) quicksort implementation in Haskell! 99% of the time I spend coding does not deal with data structures or algorithms, but basic business logic. How does Haskell perform there? I don't know, but I know Haskell's quicksort oneliners are pretty (and pretty meaningless too). I know my way around monads, I'm fluent in functional programming and grasped typeclasses... but I still can't see what's so great about Haskell beyond algorithmic beauty. I'd really like to be taught real-world-Haskell just like I was taught real-world-Lisp.

codygman 13y ago
http://realworldhaskell.com http://realworldhaskell.com
bnegreve 13y ago
Well, I would argue that this article really is an introduction to functional programming using Haskell. Most of the concepts he/she introduce are not specific to Haskell but are more or less specific to functional programming languages. But the author doesn't seem to be very well aware of that. Quoting the article: "Haskell is very different. The language uses a lot of concepts I had never heard about before." All that to say that if you already know some functional programming this probably isn't for you. Edit: clarity.
- kaoD 13y ago
  Exactly! Don't get me wrong, I don't think that most Haskell tutorials are inherently bad, I just couldn't find a good introduction to Haskell targeted at programmers which are already familiar with functional programming concepts.

dorkrawk 13y ago

| Aren't you just being lazy? :) I can't tell if this is a functional programming joke or not...

bnegreve 13y ago
ahah, no. That was unintentional.