I found Real World Haskell very helpful. After that I could actually program shell scripts in haskell. Then I did Write yourself a Scheme in 48 hours. I could make simple parsers. It is just one step of the stair. But what really helped to move up, was reading research articles in which haskell is featured. The articles are of good quality and very interesting to read. I think that is missing in the tutorials, that there are a lot of good articles about haskell. On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Christopher Howard < christopher.howard@frigidcode.com> wrote:
On 09/25/2011 03:26 PM, mike.w.meyer@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, 'Real World Haskell' doesn't involve all that much math, either. Nor did what I got through of 'Write yourself a Scheme in 48 Hours' (I switched to RWH because you can find solutions to the exercises in the reader comments). Or did you consider those "ridiculous" tutorials as well?
I hated Real World Haskell. IIRC, didn't get into any of the theory, and the "real world" examples didn't seem very real world, either.
I should probably clarify... I don't think it is a bad think that Haskell is all about higher math. I just hated the tutorials and books that pretended like this wasn't the case and try to teach you Haskell like you are learning PHP. Personally I find lambda calculus and type theory to be quite interesting and, I suspect, the salvation of the modern programming mess. Unfortunately though they depend on a lot of material I didn't learn in college because the lame C++ OOP courses I was taking gave me the impression that there was zero connection between mathematics and real life programming.
-- frigidcode.com theologia.indicium.us
______________________________**_________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/beginnershttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners