"Benjamin L. Russell" <russell(a)brainlink.com> wrote
> Michael Zawrotny <zawrotny(a)gecko.sb.fsu.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > The thing that I would most like to see would entitled "A
> > Practical Guide to Haskell" or something of that nature.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > One is tempted to come to the conclusion that Haskell is
> > not
> > suited for "normal" programmers writing "normal"
> > programs.
>
> How would you define a "'normal' programmer writing 'normal' programs?" What
> exactly is a "'normal' program?"
That was sloppy on my part. My message was getting long, so I used
"normal" as a short cut. I should know better after seeing all of
the flamewars about whether or not FP is suitable for "real" work.
What I meant by "normal programmer" was (surprise) someone like myself.
I.e. someone who doesn't have much, if any background in formal logic,
higher mathematics, proofs of various and sundry things, etc.
By "normal program" I meant things like short utility programs that
I might otherwise write in shell, python, perl, etc. or data extraction
and analysis programs that I might write in in python, perl, C or C++
depending on the type of analysis.
> (Perhaps another way of phrasing the issue is as the "declarative" vs. "proce
> dural" distinction, since the issue seems to be that of "what is" (types) vs.
> "how to" (imperative expression; i.e., procedures).)
Although there is some of that, for me at least, the types aren't a
big deal. The main thing for me is figuring out how to actually get
something done. Most of the things I've read have had tons of really
neat things that you can do with functional abstractions, but it's all
... abstract. I would love to see something that is more about getting
things done in a how-to sense, including IO. Much of the material I've
seen tends to either relegate IO and related topics into a small section
near the end (almost as if it were somehow tainted by not being able
to be modelled as a mathematical function), or it goes into it talking
about monads and combinators and things that make no sense to me.
> While I agree that "A Practical Guide to Haskell" would indeed be a suitable
> alternative for programmers from the procedural school of expression, I would
> caution that such an introduction would probably not be suitable for all.
This is very true. I think that there is plenty of material that would
be helpful for an SMLer to learn Haskell, but not much for someone who
was was only familiar with with C or who was only comfortable with FP
to the extent of understanding lambdas, closures and functions as values,
but none of the more esoteric areas of FP. I'm advocating something
along the lines of the "Practical Guide" I mentioned or the "Nutshell"
book below.
> Perhaps, ideally, two separate tutorials (or perhaps a single tutorial with t
> wo sections based on different viewpoints?) may be needed? The difficulty is
> that the conceptual distance between the declarative and procedural schools
> of thought seems too great to be bridged by a single viewpoint. It seems tha
> t any introduction favoring either one would risk alienating the other.
I agree that any single tutorial would be able to target both audiences.
> Personally, I would really prefer "A Gentle Elementary Introduction to Haskel
> l: Elements of the Haskell School of Expression with Practical Examples," bu
> t some would no doubt choose "Haskell in a Nutshell: How to Write Practical
> Programs in Haskell."
I'm definitely the "Nutshell" type. If it were published, I'd buy
it in a heartbeat. That's why it would be good to have both, everyone
would have one that suited their needs.
I'd like to say a couple things in closing, just so that people don't
get the wrong idea. I like Haskell. Even if I never really write any
programs in it, trying to learn it has given me a different way of
thinking about programming as well as exposing me to some new ideas
and generally broadening my horizons. My only problem is that I just
can't seem to get things done with it. Please note that I am not
saying here, nor did I say previously that it isn't possible to do
things in Haskell. Obviously there are a number of people who can.
I am simply saying that I am having trouble doing it. I would also
like to mention that I really appreciate the helpful and informative
tone on the list, especially on a topic that, even though not intended
that way, could be considered critical of Haskell.
Mike
--
Michael Zawrotny
411 Molecular Biophysics Building
Florida State University | email: zawrotny(a)sb.fsu.edu
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4380 | phone: (850) 644-0069
