Haskell for Mac IDE
haskellformac.com
haskellformac.com
I'm definitely keeping an eye on it, and once they come up with better pre-existing project support, and possibly git integration, it will most definitely be a candidate for replacing atom or Emacs for me. The feel of it is just fantastic.
Another awesome resource is Hoogle https://www.haskell.org/hoogle/ It's super handy if you already have programming experience and are looking for a function that does a particular thing but you don't know what it's called. You can just put the type signature of what you want in the search box and it gives you back functions that'll do it!
Agreed. There's also Stackage's Hoogle, which will search through a ton of libraries as well (e.g. aeson, for JSON parsing): https://www.stackage.org/lts-7.24/hoogle
No idea if he created the demos though.
One thing that ticked me off a bit was that the package manager and build system (cabal and stack) were a bit incomprehensible to me, hopefully this packages everything up nicely.
Indentation is a bit confusing in Haskell too, but this IDE has built in support for linting indentation.
I'm sure you're aware of stack , solves most 'dependency hell' issues. I'm not sure how much snap is maintained these days BTW, but definitely yesod is actively maintained and should have no dep issues there especially if using stack
Part of the explanation may be ease of initial interchangeability (javascript: oh yeah we can glue that to this no problem, it's all just like json or whatever man) versus maintainability (haskell: here is your type contract, the closest thing you can get in code to the fundamentalness and immutability of 2+2 =4).
If your stackage release doesn't have the package you need, you also need to add it to `extra-deps` in stack.yaml.
Interesting. How is this done? Is there a Haskell-style interface provided, or is it a thin veneer over the Objective-C API?
I'm afraid I won't be trying out this IDE, however, unless they offer a trial period (which I can't spot anywhere on the page). $30 isn't too much for a good IDE, but I'd like to try it out before paying in full, particularly since it seems to reinvent the IDE from the ground up, which makes me suspect a lot of the extra functionality, that more mature IDEs have, is missing.
[0]: https://ianchanning.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/installing-hask...
Why would I pay $30? I can learn and use Haskell for $0.
This feels like a typical mac os thing, pay for everything.
I didn’t bat an eyelid when I bought Little Snitch, Alfred, Parallels, et al. and from the screenshots this looks like a nicely polished piece of software.
Hmmm, I don't like that statement.
"Great software" is very subjective. I think linux is a great piece of software. I use a macbook for the great hardware but certainly not for the software! Apart from Sublime text all apps I use are free, including hundreds of CLI apps.
I like Unix, which is why I use Linux and macOS. Linux because macOS is not an option and work, and I dislike non Unix systems like Windows. I like to have access to a powerful CLI.
But lets face it. Once you step outside the CLI on Linux, it compares very poorly to macOS. Not only do you have far more choices for every type of app but most of those choices tend to be higher quality as well.
Now let me qualify what I mean by quality. Many Linux apps does in fact have a significant amount of functionality. You got quite extensive packages such as Gimp and Inkwell. However these frequently have poorly designed UIs or UIs which are completely different from other applications, and frequently integrate poorly with the rest of the OS.
You mentioned Sublime. Well guess what that came directly as a reaction to TextMate on macOS. There are dozens of these types of modern incarnations of vim and emacs on Mac. Fortunately now we have started getting some selection on Linux with sublime and atom. But it was kind of slow, and while both have quite good core functionality, they are a bit lacking in UI. You notice how a lot of successful apps on Linux have to rely on HTML based interfaces. Which means you kind of notice the UI is kind of slim. Last time I checked neither Sublime and Atom had any real UI for creating and modifying bundles/plugins.
So some software is worth paying for, we're just arguing over which?
If you think the benefit of using the software is $30 or greater, like anything else in the world.
It's very rude to pimp on other people's projects and articles to get something off your chest though.
This article is not primarily about Haskell, but about a commercial IDE made by a guy named Manuel M T Chakravarty — which for me it's interesting, because it's an example of somebody that apparently makes something that he likes, helping an ecosystem and people give him money for it. So it's perfectly on topic for Hacker News and visitors of the comments section like myself, would like to see opinions related to this project.
As for the comment, F# is a fine language, but reading the comparison I'm fairly certain that you haven't learned Haskell and I say this in order to help you — learning Haskell is the easiest path to practicing FP, which given your comment I'm fairly certain you don't grok yet, which keeps you back from being a good F# developer as well.
That you haven't learned Haskell is more of a failure of Haskell's community — but there have been recent projects trying to address that. One is the Haskell for Mac project here in TFA, others are the Stack build tool and http://haskellbook.com, a really good book meant for beginners.
Have to disagree here. Haskell is good for learning about advanced type systems along with FP.
But for the "easiest" path to just learning FP, Scheme, SML, even Clojure are far more approachable.
this isn't a refereed journal - you can't prescribe how people engage with the material. i was prompted to post what i did on the back of having experimented with every ide-ish thing for haskell out there about 6 months ago (this one included).
>As for the comment, F# is a fine language, but reading the comparison I'm fairly certain that you haven't learned Haskell and I say this in order to help you
not only is this patronizing but it commits the fallacy of begging the question - i did learn haskell while working on a fairly sizable codebase at my last job. i won't reiterate all of my complaints here (i've posted several times to r/haskell) but the tooling sucks and pure code is a set of handcuffs - golden handcuffs maybe but handcuffs nonetheless. that we disagree on whether pure code is the one true god does not mean i don't understand fp - it means just that, that i disagree! to conclude from my disagreement with you that i don't understand fp begs the question (petitio principii) of whether pure code is the one true god.
>That you haven't learned Haskell is more of a failure of Haskell's community — but there have been recent projects trying to address that. One is the Haskell for Mac project here in TFA, others are the Stack build tool and http://haskellbook.com, a really good book meant for beginners.
i read the haskell book and learnyouahaskell and real world haskell and many many tutorials and wrestled with stack and cabal. certainly they're better than the tools/resources available for e.g. cobol but they do not compare to the ecosystem around other, much more welcoming languages.
As for what you say about haskell being "monad acrobatics", it can be equally true of F#, or any other typed functional language, because all monads/applicatives/functors/etc are, are just helpful functional design patterns. It would be like calling Factories in Java handcuffs. If you don't want to code using Factories or Monads in Java/Haskell, that's still your choice, but if a lot of libraries in that language are using that pattern, it's probably for a reason that makes it useful in that language's paradigm. Haskell just makes it easier to use these patterns than F#/OCaml/Elm/etc because of its typeclasses, so a lot more people use them. That's all there is to it. I'll grant you that F#'s tooling is a little bit better in places though, but I was never a huge fan of it's project/module system. OCaml probably has both F# and Haskell beat there.
That being said, F# is still a fine language, and I think it's probably a better stepping stone towards learning haskell (and typed functional programming in general) than haskell itself, just because it gives you the option of gradually easing your way into the ML style of programming if you've already had some imperative programming experience before. And that's key, because the issue here is one of shifting the way you think about your programming problems, and there's simply no quick/easy way to do that. In fact, I find that a lot a complete newcomers to programming have an easier time learning how to do things the haskell way, because they don't really have these issues of feeling restricted by the type system, since it's the only way they've been taught to do things.
So overall I would say just keep at it with F#, and check out the F# way of doing things like monads (or "computation expressions" [0] as they're called in F#) , monoids [1], "Railway Oriented Programming" [2], and other such patterns [3], then maybe try checking out Haskell again later and see if it seems a little easier. But there's really no reason to be bashing it regardless.
[0] https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/series/computation-express...
[1] https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/monoids-without-tear...
[2] https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/rop/
[3] https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/series/map-and-bind-and-ap...
If it were open source, yeah definitely. But is this app written entirely in Haskell? I don't think so, otherwise it would at least be a good Haskell promotion.
He's not just "a guy". Check out http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/ . He's an old timer in the field.
No wonder, all this time I've been thinking that with enough practice I'll finally grok monads, but no, one simply has to wait for the pass to be on target.
SPJ, hit me in the numbers!
As an academic project language it seems great, but for practical work I just don't see it.
I can do a fair amount of functional programming in Swift and Julia, but still make useful stuff without without an huge mental investment.
My life as a professional C++ programmer has made me very negative to anything involving unreasonable complexity.
I'm a rank beginner at Haskell, understand the very basics, but still feel handcuffed when I stray away from the textbook examples.
In contrast in pure code people have more tendency to get into monad acrobatics, but excessive monad acrobatics is just code smell.
You can often use the "for" function for things analogous to effectful imperative loops. http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.10.0.0/docs/Data-T...
for [1..10]
print