Comments on: 37 Reasons to Love Haskell (playing off the Ruby article)

By: david

david — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:20:10 +0000

“Languages without automatic memory management are simply not candidates for writing serious application level code in the modern world.”

except for games. i just felt that needed saying.

By: Yin Wang

Yin Wang — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 02:58:00 +0000

You pretty much listed all the superficial criteria that a programmer tries to find in a language. So, surely everybody should love Haskell :-) I like Haskell quite a lot, but as a general rule, don’t fall in love anything because love makes you blind and don’t see areas that need improvements. Of course, women are an exception :-)

By: Func. Prog. Lang. Ref. « More than a Tweet

Func. Prog. Lang. Ref. « More than a Tweet — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:50:36 +0000

[...] Feb.! I’m still not ready to learn Haskell, but when I do, I think I’ll start here and here, and I am adding Pure to the [...]

By: My Functional Programming Intro « More than a Tweet

My Functional Programming Intro « More than a Tweet — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:11:05 +0000

[...] may need to learn Haskell. It’s just that searching for FP stuff, I keep hitting this [...]

By: Why Haskell is beyond ready for Prime Time « Integer Overflow

Why Haskell is beyond ready for Prime Time « Integer Overflow — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:34:55 +0000

[...] Immediately after posting, I found this article on Sententia cdsmith about reasons why Haskell is a good language. So between this post on tools [...]

By: anon

anon — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:43:04 +0000

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/gpugen.pdf
Python is great, but hard to take advantage of GPU and go
parallel.
Any bridge between Python and Haskell?

http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7nsfl/program_your_gpu_with_haskell_nonlinkjacked/

By: DiscoNeckTed

DiscoNeckTed — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:33:53 +0000

>> 24. It (really) has no pointers.

> what about Foreign.Ptr then there’s Foreign.StablePtr and System.Memory.Weak

What part of “Foreign” you don’t understand?

By: haskell programming

haskell programming — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:50:39 +0000

> 24. It (really) has no pointers.

what about Foreign.Ptr then there’s Foreign.StablePtr and System.Memory.Weak

By: Eduardo Costa

Eduardo Costa — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:17:53 +0000

I cannot understand why one uses Haskell, instead of Clean. I would appreciate to hear arguments for using Haskell, when one can use Clean. Since these two languages are very similar, it is quite easy to convert programs from one to another. I have seen huge number crunching programs in Clean (for instance, programs to model lightning, by Lucian Lima and Lucian Martins) performing better and much faster in Clean than in MatLab with a C toolbox. Since Haskell has not efficient implementation of arrays, it is impossible to port such a program to Haskell. Thus, here is my first complain about Haskell: It does not provide efficient array processing.

Clean compiler (thanks to unique types) catch most input/output errors; Haskell will catch the errors only at runtime, and I do not like programs from my company crashing at the client’s machine (who does?); for instance, Haskell compiles the program below without a single warning; Clean issues an error message, and fails to compile.

module Main
where

import IO

main = do fromHandle <- getAndOpenFile “Copy from: ” ReadMode
toHandle <- getAndOpenFile “Copy to: ” WriteMode
contents IOMode -> IO Handle

getAndOpenFile prompt mode =
do putStr prompt
name do putStrLn (“Cannot open “++ name ++ “\n”)
getAndOpenFile prompt mode)

By: Pierre

Pierre — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:20:22 +0000

Amazing you manage to say that object oriented is the first reason to love Haskell.

Sounds like everything is object oriented these days.

What about trying to figure out what it means first ?