3 ms·
This characterisation of Haskell bugs me a lot, because most reputable mathematicians would have nothing to do with Haskell either. The mathematical parts of Ha
by jordigh 13y ago
This characterisation of Haskell bugs me a lot, because most reputable mathematicians would have nothing to do with Haskell either. The mathematical parts of Haskell seem to attract logicians, not general mathematicians. General mathematiicians much prefer Sage or Mathematica.
Don't get me wrong, Haskell is a great language, but it's not very "mathematical". It just has terrible ambassadors that give the impression that category theory and Haskell are synonymous. They're not, Haskell has its own breed of categeory theory that I prefer to call Haskellory theory.
This is a reasonable introduction to Haskell that does away with that Haskegorical nonsense:
http://book.realworldhaskell.org/ http://book.realworldhaskell.org/
- copergi 13y ago>It just has terrible ambassadors that give the impression that category theory and Haskell are synonymous It isn't ambassadors doing that, it is detractors. >This is a reasonable introduction to Haskell that does away with that Haskegorical nonsense Note that one of the authors, Don Stewart is almost certainly the biggest haskell ambassador in the history of the language. Which reinforces my other statement quite nicely.
- cabalamat 13y ago> most reputable mathematicians would have nothing to do with Haskell either Really? Is that because they don't like Haskell, or because they don't like programming in general?
- jordigh 13y agoA little bit of both, but just because Haskell is so weird and different for most people, including most mathematicians.