Newest at the top
| 2026-02-26 14:13:30 +0100 | arandombit | (~arandombi@user/arandombit) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2026-02-26 14:13:23 +0100 | <realBeginner> | I enjoy geometry |
| 2026-02-26 14:13:14 +0100 | misterfish | (~misterfis@31-161-39-137.biz.kpn.net) misterfish |
| 2026-02-26 14:10:25 +0100 | <oskarw> | Also, do you like math? |
| 2026-02-26 14:10:10 +0100 | misterfish | (~misterfis@31-161-39-137.biz.kpn.net) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2026-02-26 14:09:45 +0100 | <oskarw> | realBeginner: If you want to broaden your way of thinking, than haskell certainly can do that |
| 2026-02-26 14:09:01 +0100 | <realBeginner> | I love learning how to think and enjoy making complex things easier to do. |
| 2026-02-26 14:08:50 +0100 | <oskarw> | newmind: But together with parser it really throw me off. When I done some implementations for list for applicative and doing other exercises from typeclassopedia I didn't had that much of a problem |
| 2026-02-26 14:08:48 +0100 | tales | (~tales@149.167.1.176) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2026-02-26 14:07:04 +0100 | <oskarw> | ski: I know you like sexps ;) |
| 2026-02-26 14:06:23 +0100 | <oskarw> | merijn: From which source did your girlfriend learned Haskell? |
| 2026-02-26 14:05:13 +0100 | <newmind> | i think it's the first time you encounter something that really has no sensible analog in procedural/oop programming |
| 2026-02-26 14:05:01 +0100 | <oskarw> | realBeginner: Do you have like dream program you want to make? Maybe we can help you more in recommending your programming lanugage based on this answer |
| 2026-02-26 14:04:43 +0100 | tromp | (~textual@2001:1c00:3487:1b00:7955:9591:6018:7ef9) (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…) |
| 2026-02-26 14:04:34 +0100 | tales | (~tales@149.167.1.176) |
| 2026-02-26 14:03:34 +0100 | <oskarw> | newmind: I remember spend _a lot of time_ on applicative exercise from cis194 |
| 2026-02-26 14:03:30 +0100 | <ski> | realBeginner : Lisps (like e.g. Scheme), and Prolog, have quite simple concrete syntax. Haskell is a bit more complicated, but, for the most part, i'd say, fairly regular, few corner cases/exceptions |
| 2026-02-26 14:03:04 +0100 | divya | (divya@140.238.251.170) divya |
| 2026-02-26 14:02:03 +0100 | <Leary> | realBeginner: Haskell is certainly the language most concerned with regularity. |
| 2026-02-26 14:01:58 +0100 | <darkling> | Haskell is definitely mathematical catnip. |
| 2026-02-26 14:00:59 +0100 | ChaiTRex | (~ChaiTRex@user/chaitrex) ChaiTRex |
| 2026-02-26 14:00:27 +0100 | ChaiTRex | (~ChaiTRex@user/chaitrex) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2026-02-26 14:00:23 +0100 | <oskarw> | Maybe because I had mathematical education I didn't have problems with haskell... |
| 2026-02-26 14:00:21 +0100 | <newmind> | applicative was my real "hard to get my head around" barrier |
| 2026-02-26 13:59:54 +0100 | <oskarw> | Outside of implementation of parsers in applicative, I didn't had problems with haskell, thought this was more about that I didn't know anything about parsers |
| 2026-02-26 13:59:02 +0100 | <newmind> | like: are typeclasses like java/c# interfaces? well.. a bit, yeah, but not quite |
| 2026-02-26 13:58:57 +0100 | <darkling> | I realised I was writing things in ever more functional style in my Python, and explicitly went looking for something to learn the details. I landed on Erlang. |
| 2026-02-26 13:58:43 +0100 | <ski> | oskarw : it's possibly easier to learn Haskell, if you don't know another language yet |
| 2026-02-26 13:58:25 +0100 | divya | (divya@140.238.251.170) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2026-02-26 13:58:17 +0100 | <darkling> | oskarw: That's where I came to functional programming from. :) |
| 2026-02-26 13:58:08 +0100 | <newmind> | you tend to look for analogs and similarities that just don't quite work, and it's frustrating to get stuck on problems you already know should be easy to solve |
| 2026-02-26 13:58:04 +0100 | <oskarw> | You can write functional code in python /s |
| 2026-02-26 13:57:33 +0100 | <merijn> | newmind: I agree |
| 2026-02-26 13:57:27 +0100 | <newmind> | merijn: i have the strong suspicion that haskell is actually harder (or at least: more frustrating) to learn if you're already proficient in imperative languages |
| 2026-02-26 13:57:17 +0100 | <oskarw> | But for general purpose programming, I only knew python |
| 2026-02-26 13:57:17 +0100 | <merijn> | oskarw: That's a lot of baggage, though |
| 2026-02-26 13:57:05 +0100 | <oskarw> | Yes, I knew python, and a bit R and other languages for data science |
| 2026-02-26 13:56:55 +0100 | <ski> | oskarw : sexps are fine. there was even a Haskell in sexp syntax .. (Liskell) |
| 2026-02-26 13:56:37 +0100 | <merijn> | oskarw: My girlfriend learned haskell as her first language and didn't really struggle |
| 2026-02-26 13:56:18 +0100 | <merijn> | oskarw: I mean, did you know a language before starting haskell? |
| 2026-02-26 13:55:55 +0100 | <geekosaur> | english doesn't have grammar, it has loose guidelines that it breask on a whim ☺ |
| 2026-02-26 13:55:52 +0100 | <newmind> | geekosaur: that join feels backwards, i can agree on. treating a string like a primitive type (like an int) though, that makes sense to me |
| 2026-02-26 13:55:36 +0100 | <oskarw> | geekosaur: I can agree that join method have stupid sytax in python |
| 2026-02-26 13:55:04 +0100 | <darkling> | They're generally much smaller and hence have less room for variation, but there are definitely syntactic/structural warts in places. |
| 2026-02-26 13:54:49 +0100 | <geekosaur> | dunno about other people, but I find strings not being fully OO in python somewhat confusing and offputting. and its join method always seems backwards to me |
| 2026-02-26 13:54:11 +0100 | <realBeginner> | English isn’t my native language, and learning its grammar was a nightmare—for example, regular nouns versus irregular nouns when forming plurals.I guess this might apply to computer languages |
| 2026-02-26 13:54:10 +0100 | philopsos1 | (~caecilius@user/philopsos) philopsos |
| 2026-02-26 13:52:49 +0100 | <oskarw> | *taboo |
| 2026-02-26 13:52:49 +0100 | tales | (~tales@149.167.1.176) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2026-02-26 13:52:34 +0100 | oskarw | loves both haskell and lisp syntax, but he knows that liking lisp syntax on #haskell is tabu |