Andrew Coppin
Don Stewart wrote:
So I guess that means that I don't count as a "knowledgable" Haskell programmer. :-(
RWH is free and online, and covers many useful things. There's no excuse :-)
I was about to say "yeah, but RWH isn't that good" - and then I noticed who I'm speaking to. ;-)
So let me rephrase that: RWH isn't as good as I was hoping it would be. Still, since I haven't written anything better myself, I guess I don't get to criticise...
In any case, surely the Typeclassopedia would be a far better place to comprehend Applicative?
Writing libraries that bind to C is a great way to have to use a lot of hsc2hs (or c2hs), so clearly you need to contribute more libraries :-)
So hsc2hs is related to writing C bindings? Well, that'll be why I've never heard of it then; I don't understand C. (Nor do I particularly want to... I chose Haskell.)
Besides, why in the world do Haskell libraries have to involve C? Because we need to reuse those existing high-quality C library, such as GTK+ library. Because so many people into their's efforts to these C library, it's really unnecessary re-implement those *huge* C library by Haskell.
C binding perhaps not the perfect way, but it's cheapest way to fix your *real* problem. Don't tell me you want spend 10 years build Haskell Purely Graphics Toolkit even you just want do some GUI program. ;-) IMO, C is best way to handle hardware detail, that's the another reason need C binding... Cheers, -- Andy