Roberto Zunino writes:
jerzy.karczmarczuk@info.unicaen.fr wrote: ... Andrew Coppin wrote:
OK. I get the message. I'm unsubscribing now...
There was no need to.
Please, let's keep haskell-cafe a friendly place, as it's always been.
Yes. I would add, friendly and USEFUL, as it's always been. It was not my intention of "throwing away", anybody, and I didn't. I had no right to do such thing either. I just asked A. Coppin to think twice before submitting dubious statements, didn't I? I believe that it would be useful for the list if he stayed, and *asked questions*. My impoliteness was quite restrained... But, when J. Vimal "threateneds us" to throw away Haskell, complained about monads, and most people confirmed that the underlying theory is difficult, ugly, and useless, I began to read those postings with attention, since I disagree with spreading such atmosphere. And A.C. additionally wrote that all this theory has nothing to do with Haskell, and submitted three more postings, one more dubious than the other, I found that a warning seems suitable, not for him, but for his readers! Mathematics is beautiful and useful. The commutativity of some categorical diagrams can be translated into the optimization of Haskell constructs, say, showing that there is a canonical isomorphism between (map f) . (map g) and: map (f . g) etc. So, why dump the theory away, which suggests additionally that the conceptors of Haskell are irresponsible dreamers, living on some crystal mountain?... The language is not trivial to learn, that's it. If somebody feels discouraged, my own students often are, then the recipe is simple: ask CONCRETE questions, get CONCRETE answer. THEN generalize. But if some people offer general answers, they must be based on a real competence and experience, otherwise they easily become harmful. ============== "David48" points out that if a list returns the reader to the docs which he has already seen, and which is poor, then it doesn't work at all. OK, then, once more, don't say "I cannot understand monads", or rewriting, or whatever, but say plainly: "I read XYZ in the ABC tutorial, and the example PQR remains too difficult." And say WHAT doesn't work. Go ahead, criticize *concrete* documentation, don't say that docs are lousy! Almost all Haskell documentation has been written by people who *beg* constantly for comments, for criticism; let's help them instead of shouting at them. Of course, the repeated, ever and ever again questions mean that one day it will be absolutely necessary to make a true FABQ, proposed a few times, and still in statu nascendi... Jerzy Karczmarczuk