Daniel Carrera wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "quick" and "small". Do you mean that the program should execute fast and have a small memmory foot-print?
I was referring to Robin's mentioning space/time usage, so yes, that's what I meant.
To write interactive Haskell code well, you have to understand higher order functions.
That's scary, that you need advanced knowledge just to do IO.
Actually not. You need advanced knowledge to *avoid* doing IO. (If higher order functions like map, fold count as advanced.) A good, readable, maintainable Haskell program is almost completely pure and does very little IO. Of course you can write an IO-heavy program in the same style you'd use in C, but it would be exactly as ugly.
Unless you want to teach people to program as they would do in Basic, that is.
I don't know what you mean by that.
You will soon. Once you get used to composing functions instead of sequencing actions, you'll appreciate the difference. Udo. -- Disco is to music what Etch-A-Sketch is to art.