4 ms·

I am confused. If you feel there are much better languages than Haskell, how would Haskell be the "theoretically most advanced language"? As far as what I have

I am confused. If you feel there are much better languages than Haskell, how would Haskell be the "theoretically most advanced language"? As far as what I have learned and how I have been studying, I did try "Learn You a Haskell" but found its explanations inadequate and sometimes confusing. Searching the web, I find a number of people feeling the same. Meanwhile, I find a large number of people agreeing with your experience the text is the best introduction. I think the fact the supposed best text is utterly failing a sizable number of people also suggests how worthwhile Haskell might be.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> I think the fact the supposed best text is utterly failing a sizable number of people also suggests how worthwhile Haskell might be. I think it says a lot more about the fact that learning (and, therefore, the best text for learning) is highly subjective than it does about the worth of Haskell. I mean, how does the logic even work that leads from "some people think that this text is good for learning about X but I find it is 'inadequate and sometimes confusing' to me" to "X isn't generally worthwhile" even work?
- blackbook 12y ago
  > I mean, how does the logic even work that leads from "some people think that this text is good for learning about X but I find it is 'inadequate and sometimes confusing' to me" to "X isn't generally worthwhile" even work? I'm pretty sure I did not make that particular claim. I have trouble learning from the supposed best text; others have trouble learning from the supposed best text; asking questions gets me treated with hostility and non-helpfulness. I want to know what I am going to get out of learning the language if I put additional time into it. If I am not going to get any more from Haskell beyond (a) what I already know in C/C++ and (b) the ability to put Haskell on a resume, the question of cost/benefit analysis arises quite quickly.
shepardrtc 12y ago
I actually found LYAH to be really good. I picked up on the basics of Haskell very quickly with it. If you're comparing your progress to some of the more advanced programs out there, you'll certainly get demoralized. But if you're having trouble with just the stuff in LYAH, then maybe Haskell isn't your thing? 6 months is a good long time to spend on learning something, so I'm pretty sure your gut instinct knows what's best for you.
swatow 12y ago
>I am confused. If you feel there are much better languages than Haskell, how would Haskell be the "theoretically most advanced language"? Let me rephrase: I think that there are much better languages out there, that haven't been invented yet. The most theoretically advanced languages right now are dependently typed languages. Haskell isn't a dependently typed language, but learning Haskell is a necessary stepping stone to learning dependently typed languages. Regarding LYAH, it's not really possible for me to comment given how little data I have. I know some CS courses for undergrads teach Haskell, I wonder what textbooks (if any) they use?

dragonwriter 12y ago

> I think the fact the supposed best text is utterly failing a sizable number of people also suggests how worthwhile Haskell might be. I think it says a lot more about the fact that learning (and, therefore, the best text for learning) is highly subjective than it does about the worth of Haskell. I mean, how does the logic even work that leads from "some people think that this text is good for learning about X but I find it is 'inadequate and sometimes confusing' to me" to "X isn't generally worthwhile" even work?

blackbook 12y ago
> I mean, how does the logic even work that leads from "some people think that this text is good for learning about X but I find it is 'inadequate and sometimes confusing' to me" to "X isn't generally worthwhile" even work? I'm pretty sure I did not make that particular claim. I have trouble learning from the supposed best text; others have trouble learning from the supposed best text; asking questions gets me treated with hostility and non-helpfulness. I want to know what I am going to get out of learning the language if I put additional time into it. If I am not going to get any more from Haskell beyond (a) what I already know in C/C++ and (b) the ability to put Haskell on a resume, the question of cost/benefit analysis arises quite quickly.

shepardrtc 12y ago

I actually found LYAH to be really good. I picked up on the basics of Haskell very quickly with it. If you're comparing your progress to some of the more advanced programs out there, you'll certainly get demoralized. But if you're having trouble with just the stuff in LYAH, then maybe Haskell isn't your thing? 6 months is a good long time to spend on learning something, so I'm pretty sure your gut instinct knows what's best for you.

swatow 12y ago

>I am confused. If you feel there are much better languages than Haskell, how would Haskell be the "theoretically most advanced language"? Let me rephrase: I think that there are much better languages out there, that haven't been invented yet. The most theoretically advanced languages right now are dependently typed languages. Haskell isn't a dependently typed language, but learning Haskell is a necessary stepping stone to learning dependently typed languages. Regarding LYAH, it's not really possible for me to comment given how little data I have. I know some CS courses for undergrads teach Haskell, I wonder what textbooks (if any) they use?