5 ms·

This posting convinced me to learn Haskell. But it requires to be more than just a programmer. Why I love Python, - because of scientific-friendly community.

• SixSigma 11y ago
  Wirth told us in 1976 that : Algorithms + Data Stuctures = Programs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithms_%2B_Data_Structures_%3D_Programs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithms_%2B_Data_Structures...
• Kenji 11y ago
  Be prepared to be much less productive in Haskell; you can't just get into it and start writing code. Everything must be well thought out before you start to write a line (and yes, that's how it's supposed to be but sometimes it's easier to just hack something together to see what issues might arise, and then make it beautiful). On the other hand, the beauty of Haskell is that the code is much cleaner and modular. Don't be fooled, though: Even in Haskell you can write very ugly code.
  • creichert 11y ago
    Be prepared to be much less productive in Haskell; you can't just get into it and start writing code. Everything must be well thought out before you start to write a line This is only true when you are becoming familiar with the language (arguably any programming language). Once you're able to get a grasp on how to program in Haskell, it's very possible to hack programs together quickly and refactor with confidence later.
  • psibi 11y ago
    > Everything must be well thought out before you start to write a line Not exactly. When you are initially learning the language, you have to think a little more. But once you are comfortable with it, the type signatures dictate you what to do. Also, it's quite easy to refactor to a different design because of the types.
  • dllthomas 11y ago
    "Be prepared to be much less productive in Haskell[.]" Likely to be the case, but mostly because there's a lot to learn before you can be effective as an intermediate or senior level Haskeller. "[Y]ou can't just get into it and start writing code. Everything must be well thought out before you start to write a line (and yes, that's how it's supposed to be but sometimes it's easier to just hack something together to see what issues might arise, and then make it beautiful)." This is not the case at all. You can write Haskell that way, but remember that 1) with type inference, you don't need to specify the types of most things up front; and 2) you can change your types as you go. You can totally just start coding, and then later peel out this tuple into a named type and such. I find I'm most productive somewhere between the two extremes - start from the few types that I know must be fixed (by the fact that I'm interfacing with other code expecting them), then continue sketching in both types and code and let each guide the other. "On the other hand, the beauty of Haskell is that the code is much cleaner and modular." When you're doing it right, absolutely. "Don't be fooled, though: Even in Haskell you can write very ugly code." Also very much the case - I've done it!
    • merijnv 11y ago
      > "Don't be fooled, though: Even in Haskell you can write very ugly code." > Also very much the case - I've done it! On the bright side, refactoring ugly code into not ugly code is substantially easier in Haskell than many other languages! ;)
      • dllthomas 11y ago
        It can be. It depends on the reasons your code is ugly. Meaningful refactors are much easier in Haskell. Small, local improvements in clarity aren't going to be substantially different between Haskell and other languages. Also, it's worth noting that Haskell has a couple ways it can get ugly that are less of an issue in other languages. First, point-free programming can be incredibly clear when you've got a simple series of transformations of relatively simple data. Sometimes it winds up over-applied, in situations where it would be clearer to break things apart. Second, most languages enforce a distinction between expression and statement. That Haskell doesn't gives more flexibility about how one breaks up expressions. This flexibility means that sometimes ideas can be expressed more clearly, but it's an additional thing to learn on the path to writing readable Haskell.
  • DevPad 11y ago
    Very true. It's possible to write ugly code in any programming language, just so easy.
  • codygman 11y ago
    > Be prepared to be much less productive in Haskell; you can't just get into it and start writing code. Everything must be well thought out before you start to write a line Something about Haskell makes people enforce this upon themselves. You most certainly can hack things together quickly with Haskell after learning as much as you would in an imperative langauge so long as you can accept it will be ugly and unmaintainable, but that's not much different than other languages.
    • tome 11y ago
      Yeah, I don't recognise that restriction either.
  • agumonkey 11y ago
    Should we read 'much less productive' as 'much more precise and solid, less buggy and forcede to be well thought through' ? Sometimes it feels that many systems confounds shipping lines with productivity.
• jimmaswell 11y ago
  They're just different paradigms, one's not on a "higher" or "lower" level. They're good for different things.
  • DevPad 11y ago
    Yeah, what I feel like it could be with Haskell: get a glass of good wine and solve interesting programming problem during evening. And write some beautiful code.
• vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Not sure what "more algos", "data structures" and "math" are supposed to mean here.