Hello, which would be the minimal Haskell concepts subset equivalent to a Turing-complete high level language? I bet there would be no monads and type classes in the subset. Please, see that I am not an idealist nor want to use the acclaimed very powerful abstraction capabilities of Haskell. I just need to know how much is strictly needed, even if a real Haskeller or other person couldn't understand my code. Davi
Hi Davi! On 25.07.2011 22:05, Davi Santos wrote:
Hello, which would be the minimal Haskell concepts subset equivalent to a Turing-complete high level language? I bet there would be no monads and type classes in the subset.
You'd need very little for Turing completeness. But what constitutes a "high level language"? Regards, Thomas
It is subjective, I know. I used the term "high level language" to show that abstraction is interesting despite my arguing against too much abstraction. I remembered one crucial question: Why do we use so much abstraction and there are always somebody recommending to read the standard library sources? Davi
Hi Davi, maybe you'll find "Programming in Haskell" by Graham Hutton an interesting read. It is - I think - pretty lightweight in the sense that it doesn't overload you with concepts, and pretty complete in the sense that it explains well all that it explains. (There are no monads, for example, IIRC.) The only critique I'd make eventually is that it doesn't say much about how to connect Haskell to the "outside world". That bothered me a lot initially, but it's not too much of an issue for me any more. I just solve my problem without caring for the surroundings and then plug it into some "real world wrapper". Won't work for all problems, I guess, but has worked very well for me so far. Caveat emptor: I consider myself still a beginner in Haskell. Regards, Thomas On 25.07.2011 23:29, Davi Santos wrote:
It is subjective, I know. I used the term "high level language" to show that abstraction is interesting despite my arguing against too much abstraction.
I remembered one crucial question: Why do we use so much abstraction and there are always somebody recommending to read the standard library sources?
Davi
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
There are a number of languages called "Mini Haskell" that will come up if you're lucky in a web search. One from Konstantin Läufer includes type classes, whereas the others seem to be just small, lazy functional languages. I think the Haskell history paper presented at HOPL considers type classes to be the defining feature or Haskell.
Take a look at Min by Stephen Tse.
http://min-lang.blogspot.com/
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Davi Santos
Hello, which would be the minimal Haskell concepts subset equivalent to a Turing-complete high level language? I bet there would be no monads and type classes in the subset. Please, see that I am not an idealist nor want to use the acclaimed very powerful abstraction capabilities of Haskell. I just need to know how much is strictly needed, even if a real Haskeller or other person couldn't understand my code. Davi _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
-- -- Regards, KC
Julian, my major critique to some OO programs is exactly the object over-orientation. It is something like: "divide in objects until it becomes impossible to continue dividing". I agree with you when comparing to FP. Beyond that, now I realize my object over-orientation feeling can be analogous to my over-abstraction in FP feeling. I am not sure if it is a problem with my early imperative experience or if it is a real problem of taking things to their extremes. Thomas, Stephen and KC, I will check out the mini Haskells. May be they were made specially to me, :) . If I stay still unsatisfied, "Programming in Haskell" is an option to restart learning. It has been a productive discussion, thank you all for the open-minded attitude. Davi
The only other Haskell I found was Disciple http://disciple.ouroborus.net/ Couldnt find anything in : http://min-lang.blogspot.com/ If somebody knows another minihaskell, please let me know. Davi
Davi Santos
If somebody knows another minihaskell, please let me know.
Davi
For me, the most important ideas about Haskell are contained in the Untyped Lambda Calculus and the Simply-Typed Lambda Calculus. Yes, it's math, but a little goes a long way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus
participants (5)
-
Davi Santos -
David F. Place -
KC -
Stephen Tetley -
Thomas