From Haskell to Hardware [video]
begriffs.com
begriffs.com
Especially if you're into Functional Reactive Programming, rendering, etc, ...
His [re]definition of 3d rendering was gold: http://conal.net/blog/posts/3d-rendering-as-functional-react...
Apparently the technology was some sort of space-tech FPGA that could reconfigure at 2Ghz (i.e. close to the general max clock speed), they use Haskell's typesystem and non-sequentiality to build these circuits in a nice parallel way.
Why I love Python, - because of scientific-friendly community.
Haskell is more than that: more algos, data structures, functional programming, math, - completely next level.
Algorithms + Data Stuctures = Programs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithms_%2B_Data_Structures...
This is only true when you are becoming familiar with the language (arguably any programming language). Once you're able to get a grasp on how to program in Haskell, it's very possible to hack programs together quickly and refactor with confidence later.
Not exactly. When you are initially learning the language, you have to think a little more. But once you are comfortable with it, the type signatures dictate you what to do. Also, it's quite easy to refactor to a different design because of the types.
Likely to be the case, but mostly because there's a lot to learn before you can be effective as an intermediate or senior level Haskeller.
"[Y]ou can't just get into it and start writing code. Everything must be well thought out before you start to write a line (and yes, that's how it's supposed to be but sometimes it's easier to just hack something together to see what issues might arise, and then make it beautiful)."
This is not the case at all. You can write Haskell that way, but remember that 1) with type inference, you don't need to specify the types of most things up front; and 2) you can change your types as you go. You can totally just start coding, and then later peel out this tuple into a named type and such. I find I'm most productive somewhere between the two extremes - start from the few types that I know must be fixed (by the fact that I'm interfacing with other code expecting them), then continue sketching in both types and code and let each guide the other.
"On the other hand, the beauty of Haskell is that the code is much cleaner and modular."
When you're doing it right, absolutely.
"Don't be fooled, though: Even in Haskell you can write very ugly code."
Also very much the case - I've done it!
> Also very much the case - I've done it!
On the bright side, refactoring ugly code into not ugly code is substantially easier in Haskell than many other languages! ;)
Also, it's worth noting that Haskell has a couple ways it can get ugly that are less of an issue in other languages.
First, point-free programming can be incredibly clear when you've got a simple series of transformations of relatively simple data. Sometimes it winds up over-applied, in situations where it would be clearer to break things apart.
Second, most languages enforce a distinction between expression and statement. That Haskell doesn't gives more flexibility about how one breaks up expressions. This flexibility means that sometimes ideas can be expressed more clearly, but it's an additional thing to learn on the path to writing readable Haskell.
Something about Haskell makes people enforce this upon themselves. You most certainly can hack things together quickly with Haskell after learning as much as you would in an imperative langauge so long as you can accept it will be ugly and unmaintainable, but that's not much different than other languages.
And write some beautiful code.