/prog/ - knowledge is my blood

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 8:40

/program/, I love knowledge. The rush I get when a concept clicks is my drug. Learning is why I get up in the morning. I want t know everything there is to know. Learning Haskell is one of my greatest adventures and its had me up all night every night for a while. An anyone else relate? Why am I addicted to the moment of understanding?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 9:30

Have you done monads yet?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 9:55

>>2
No. Actually, I haven't been at it for very long; I would define `a while' in this case to be a few days. I'm getting used to type class system, and learn you a Haskell is a wonderful book. Monads have been described as a daunting mathematical concept. Music to my ears.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 10:05

u tiny dik man

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 12:21

That's great for you because seeing as you're posting on /prog/ you weren't going to get a 'rush' by any conventional mean anyway. (love, sex, drugs, adventure, going out, etc).

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 12:34

>>5
>implying I don't get sex

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 13:16

I have thousands of books on programming in PDF form, and I feel rich for it.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 13:32

>>7
Word of advice: Don't.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 13:51

>>7
books on programming
Stopped reading right there.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 15:56

>>1
are you me?

this is sad

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 16:02

>>2
as an advice, read the introduccion of wadler on monads, it introduced the concept and tell "why would you want to use monads"

and as the first monad to understand use "Maybe" something like

(Just 2 >>= (\a -> return (a + 5)) >>= (\b -> return (b^2))

(Nothing >>= (\a -> return (a + 5)) >>= (\b -> return (b^2))

i think is the easiest monad. when you understand (in the widler paper) how the state monad works then you can say you understand them (IO is just a big state monad)

good luck

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 17:20

>>11
So there's more to Maybe that just a simple type?

>>9
>reading
Stopped reading right there

>>10
Yes.

Name: >>10,12 2012-01-30 18:02

Enjoying learning new things is perfectly normal, and, depending on your future job(s), useful, too. Don't feel bad.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 21:16

>>12
well, it the most simple type constructor. but is really useful in practice. Maybe is more useful as a Functor (a functor really is something you can map on)

so
fmap (+3) [2,6,9] == [5,9,12]
fmap (+3) (Just 3) == Just 6
fmap (+3) Nothing == Nothing

i guess you can imagine some situation where you have to make a lot of test on data, and if one fail the final return should be fail too. well maybe is well suited for this behavior

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 22:24

>>14
I find this fundamental; LYAH is doing me great good.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 23:21

>>1
I can relate. I learned enough Haskell to realize it was crap.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 23:28

Haskell is constipated shit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-31 1:13

Why am I addicted to the moment of understanding?

continuations are a good trip, man

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-31 1:26

>>16
What about it don't you like?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-31 3:41

>>19

Look at how these Haskell morons struggle with the simple concept of putting several objects of different types into the same list:

http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Heterogenous_collections

This is insanity.

>>1

Not all man-made crap worth knowing.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-31 3:53

>>20
I'm still not seeing any major drawbacks. Also, can't a [Num] have integers and floats and the like?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-31 4:01

knowledge is my dubs

check 'em

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-31 4:14

Haskell gave me recursive nightmares

knowledge is my blood

1 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 8:40

2 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 9:30

3 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 9:55

4 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 10:05

5 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 12:21

6 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 12:34

7 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 13:16

8 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 13:32

9 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 13:51

10 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 15:56

11 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 16:02

12 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 17:20

13 Name: >>10,12 2012-01-30 18:02

14 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 21:16

15 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 22:24

16 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 23:21

17 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-30 23:28

18 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-31 1:13

19 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-31 1:26

20 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-31 3:41

21 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-31 3:53

22 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-31 4:01

23 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-31 4:14