Il 19/mar/2014 23:51 "Kim-Ee Yeoh"
There's a lot of low-lying fruit that's easily plucked leveraging
How do you work at a larger (module/project) level? Do you need to have
mastered all the main monads (beyond list amd maybe) and monad transformers?
Don't sweat them monads. The codebase for GHC doesn't even use monad
functional programming. Thanks for the insight. The "don't"s are most helpful. I have to constantly take myself from code golfing and overcomplicating things for the sake of cleverness (especially in a language that enables you so much). transformers iirc. My point was that when you're arranging new data types you'd probably benefit from understanding/recognizing behavioral patterns (e.g a Reader, a State-carrying data structure, etc.). Nonetheless I think I understand your point in which keeping things flat simple does come a long way to solving problems.
Not at all. Haskell mailing lists used to have long, discursive
discussions, but somehow this one turned into some kind of rapid-fire Q&A. Most of the interesting knowledge can't be unpacked in that format. Eh, that would imply a certain level of knowledge on both side. The fact that I'm stubborn and keep writing mails on a phone while train-commuting doesn't help either.
-- Kim-Ee
Thanks again, Regards Nadir