Re: [Haskell-beginners] sometimes Haskell isn't what you want

I went briefly to Python but guess what? I I U-turned right back to Haskell. Because there is nothing like the consistent documentation and well-thought-out libraries of Haskell. There is nothing else like the help from #haskell or this list. I used to program in Python. I went back to it for one day (yesterday) and that was enough to make me realize how unpleasant its inconsistencies, inconsistent documentation, awkwardnesses, etc. Maybe Haskell will make me think harder but at least the whole language and supporting documentation and the whole community has "got my back." Haskell is a gift and I'm not throwing it away. Yay! On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:

On Sun, 9 Sep 2012, Dennis Raddle wrote:

Sadly, I've decided Haskell is not the right language for my current

...

project. Python is better. I need to hack together data, and strict typing is getting in the way. Most of my algorithms are better served with imperative/mutable-data. I learned a lot about Haskell trying to do it, but my knowledge of the language is not quiet good enough and I feel like I'm fighting the language. Python is better. For now.

I always recommend Scheme.

It is like Haskell in one respect:

The Scheme Tribes keep the Ritual and the Law of Lambda.

Scheme is different from Haskell in two respects:

We Lispers do all our coding under the Great Functor, the Great Functor from Code to Objects in the Lisp World.

For most Scheme systems, the Type Sub-System calculates less at compile time.

Robert Harper has a new textbook available at

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/**plbook/book.pdfhttp://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/plbook/book.pdf

and here is a useful notice of the book

http://blog.ezyang.com/2012/**08/practical-foundations-for-** programming-languages/http://blog.ezyang.com/2012/08/practical-foundations-for-programming-languag...

ad missing the Great Functor: See remarks on "symbols" in the section 32.3 on page 321, and the discussion of observational equivalence in section 47.1 on page 498. A Lisper reading these sections might say "Ah, the Great Functor is worthy of study by New Type Theorists too. We Lispers consider a symbol to be a symbol first, and nothing else until you pass across one or more functors, and then the symbol might become many different things.".

ad "dynamic typing" vs "static typing": Professor Harper's blog post

http://existentialtype.**wordpress.com/2011/03/19/** dynamic-languages-are-static-**languages/http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/dynamic-languages-are-static...

deals with this. I think the claim made, that "dynamic typing" is a special case of "static typing", is, when sympathetically read, right.

oo--JS.

______________________________**_________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/beginnershttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners