blackbook

I have seen the /r/haskell subreddit. I lurked there for a few of months and my overall impression of it unfortunately is a sizable portion of people on that subreddit treat others exactly in the way which I have been treated while trying to learn Haskell, which is quite a shame. :-(

Do you have nay experience with the #haskell-beginner channel and knowledge about the degree of helpfulness there compared to #nothaskell?

I will check out the link; thanks a bunch!

I am looking to write some scientific programs in which I have a good degree of confidence is accurate and are easily understandable, maintainable, and extendible. Speed, in terms of both writing the programs and running them, is also a factor. Theoretically, I can write these programs in just about any language. However, I get the impression Haskell can do all this in a well-balanced way. At the least, I hear claims of such.

> I mean, how does the logic even work that leads from "some people think that this text is good for learning about X but I find it is 'inadequate and sometimes confusing' to me" to "X isn't generally worthwhile" even work?

I'm pretty sure I did not make that particular claim. I have trouble learning from the supposed best text; others have trouble learning from the supposed best text; asking questions gets me treated with hostility and non-helpfulness. I want to know what I am going to get out of learning the language if I put additional time into it. If I am not going to get any more from Haskell beyond (a) what I already know in C/C++ and (b) the ability to put Haskell on a resume, the question of cost/benefit analysis arises quite quickly.

PC-lint. It has served me well.

Thanks for the link. I see 5 benefits listed. Concise code; native code optimization (LLVM) and compilation; parallel and concurrent runtime; debuggers, profiling tools, refactoring, coverage, testing tools; library support, distribution mechanisms. With the exception of concise code, however, I think I get the rest with a combination of clang and a good static analyzer, no?

I am confused. If you feel there are much better languages than Haskell, how would Haskell be the "theoretically most advanced language"?

As far as what I have learned and how I have been studying, I did try "Learn You a Haskell" but found its explanations inadequate and sometimes confusing. Searching the web, I find a number of people feeling the same. Meanwhile, I find a large number of people agreeing with your experience the text is the best introduction. I think the fact the supposed best text is utterly failing a sizable number of people also suggests how worthwhile Haskell might be.

So, the only tangible benefit you see is "it enriches our understanding as a community regarding language design and program design"? To be clear, when you say, "I think that is a worthwhile enough contribution," are you saying this benefit of enrichment is "worthwhile enough" to warrant learning it?

So, are you saying there are no tangible benefits?

Where would you suggest I ask?