4 ms·
Write yourself a Scheme in 48 hours: A Haskell Tutorial
- jamesbritt 13y agoPrevious: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1378043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1378043 From a comment there: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Write_Yourself_a_Scheme_in_48_Hours http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Write_Yourself_a_Scheme_in_48_H... is the maintained version.
- nostrademons 13y agoIt's weird to see a comment I wrote 4 years ago saying "Yeah, I haven't really touched this in 3 years." Man, I'm getting old. Still, it's neat to see folks still find this interesting & informative. I learned a lot from writing it, and I hope others learn a lot from reading & working through it.
- jamesbritt 13y agoThanks for writing it. It was one of the things that helped me makes some sense of Haskell. So much of what I had been seeing was all heavy math and abstractions, and while that's interesting it never gave me a foothold for actually using it. Seeing something much more tangible made a big difference.
- pycassa 13y agoThank you, I was looking for exactly this kind of Haskell tutorial. I really liked learnyouahaskell, but realworld Haskell not soo much. Will give this a go.
- houshuang 13y agoWikibooks really needs to get syntax highlighting - I find it helps me a lot when reading code.
- theGimp 13y agoIt seems this has been posted before. Nonetheless, thank you very much; it's new to me. Scheme is wonderful, and I'm enjoying learning Haskell. This will be a fun exercise.
- priyadarshy 13y agoSpent a lot of time this week working through the Learn you a Haskell tutorial. Definitely getting bored of adding numbers, each exercise and example is so trivial that it's hard to get curious and go down a rabbit hole that teaches you a lot. I'll try this out this week. Thanks for sharing! What I'm wondering about is how you arrived at the 48 Hour number?
- coolsunglasses 13y agohttp://yannesposito.com/Scratch/en/blog/Haskell-the-Hard-Way/ http://yannesposito.com/Scratch/en/blog/Haskell-the-Hard-Way... I wasn't crazy about LYAH or RWH. They're both spreading too little butter over too much dry toast. Haskell the Hard Way is small, dense, efficient, and enjoyable. I think one of the more popular, but fundamental, mistakes in teaching Haskell is in thinking that the more important "revelations" are easier to convey if you hide them in a sea of noise and that doing so is the only alternative to impenetrable white papers.
- 6d0debc071 13y agoHave you tried Real World Haskell, [ http://book.realworldhaskell.org/ http://book.realworldhaskell.org/ ] if you find Learn You a bit boring?
- cursork 13y agoLYAH is a chore. I got nowhere with it - it is tedious. After a cursory glance a few of us at my company are working through The Little MLer in Haskell instead. It seems to really be focussing on types and I think those kind of core concepts are important to grasp at the early stages. More importantly, the Little Schemer and The Little MLer are aimed at non-programmers... yet programmers struggle with them. We should question why that is.
- VMG 13y agoJust to counter-signal the general negativity bias of internet comments on anything popular: I liked Learn You A Haskell a lot.
- Datsundere 13y agoI got stuck in the first exercise #2. I'm trying to read 2 args, cast them to int and add them. putStrLn( read (args!!0)::Int + read(args!!1)::Int ) Definately need to do learnyouahaskell before reading this tutorial which is what I'm about to do. The link to how read is implemented doens't make any sense to me (coming from a procedural language background). I suggest adding answers to the exercises or asking questions that are self contained in the tutorial.
- ben0x539 13y agoblah :: Type + blah :: Type is gonna get parsed as blah :: (Type + blah :: Type), just add more parens there. Also, you need to convert the result back to a string before calling putStrLn.