Thanks for the great responses. My haskell-learning todo list is refreshed and renewed :)
John Lato wrote:Well, yes. If you don't know what a feature does, then you won't know that it solves the problem you have.
I sort of agree with this, with some very large caveats.
However, there's a lot to be said for both intellectual curiosity andlearning for the sake of knowledge. Just because you may never need
to use a feature doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to understand it.
There is that. However, in my experience, most of the advanced techniques tend to be described in language beyond my comprehension. (And most examples seem overly complex - although maybe that's just a reflection of the fact that simple problems don't require sophisticated techniques in the first place.) Having a specific problem to solve can be quite helpful. Unlike an example, you already understand what the problem is, and why it can't easily be solved any other way.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe