News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Reflecting on Haskell in 2016 by moomin on Monday December 26, 2016 @02:50AM (#13257410)
This is only true after you've fully grokked the implications of the types. And, IME, that takes a long time. To give you an example, I spent ages trying to figure out how to create an X. X was a Monad of A. Solution's obvious now...
Re:Reflecting on Haskell in 2016 by greenrd on Monday December 26, 2016 @06:52AM (#13257931)
Yes, it's a mistake to believe that the type class instances of a type are always going to be advanced details that can be skipped until later. They might be, or they might not.
Re:Reflecting on Haskell in 2016 by efnx on Monday December 26, 2016 @11:58AM (#13258845)
Examples would help in that case, but there would still be much confusion simply from not understanding Monads (enough to write a computation in that one).