5 ms·
The reputation rather than the actual experience of Haskell is what puts people off.
by rfergie 12y ago
The reputation rather than the actual experience of Haskell is what puts people off.
- tormeh 12y agoI have never bounced off any language other than Haskell. Lisps are easy to learn by comparison.
- Ma8ee 12y agoOk, now I really have to learn Haskell.
- erikb 12y agoWhat have you heard? All I've heard makes me sad I never got around to learning me some Haskell.
- rfergie 12y agoHaskell was the first language I learned. There is tremendous depth to it which I am still exploring but to start and do the beginner kind of things I was wanting to do it is not hard. Maybe not as easy as Python, but there is a huge gap between "not quite as easy as" and the "you need a CS degree and a Phd in Category Theory to even get started" rhetoric.
- CJefferson 12y agoHere was about my first experience of Haskell. I don't mind admitting I bounced fairly hard at first. I've since done a bit more, but find it too limiting rather than freeing. Prelude> foldr + [1,2,3] <interactive>:14:9: Couldn't match expected type ‘(a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b’ with actual type ‘[t0]’ Relevant bindings include it :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b (bound at <interactive>:14:1) In the second argument of ‘(+)’, namely ‘[1, 2, 3]’ In the expression: foldr + [1, 2, 3] In an equation for ‘it’: it = foldr + [1, 2, 3]
- Viktoras25 12y agoFinally I found out the correct version: foldr (+) 0 [1,2,3] 1. + contains only special characters and must be used either as infix function (1 + 2) or be enclosed in brackets 2. You need an initial value for the accumulator. You are reducing a list to a single value, you need to start somewhere Please, gurus of Haskell, correct me if I'm wrong, I've just recently started to learn the language