Learning Haskell

I've recently become interested in learning a new language, and haskell seems like a great language to learn. I got a few books on haskell, too. So, /prog/, why shouldn't i learn haskell?

because you wouldn't comprehend it anyways

Refer to https://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1341173740/359, please!

>>3 `
>complaining about lack of dynamic scope
I wish I could be so brilliant.

>>4
- Absence of dynamic scope, implicit open recursion, late binding, and duck typing severely limits Haskell, since there are things that can't be done easily without these features: you can't implement dynamic scope in general (and be type-safe) without converting your entire program to use tagged values. So in this respect, Haskell is inferior to dynamic typing languages.
Do you have some clean way to implement ``dynamic scope'' in Haskell? Doubt it.

>>1
I find OCaml to be more practical than Haskell.

>>4
Why do you have to ``quote'' (you're not even quoting anyone) like a retard from the imageboards?

>>7
I have already explained it to you. Those are not quotes but a modern and less verbose syntax that cool people use on BBS.

>>8
LE E/G/IN /G/OOIN /G/RO XDDDDDDDDDDD

>>9
fuck you faggot

Haskell seems like a nice language to write bug-free, clean code in.

>>11
Except it's fucking disgusting and verbose.

> And, just like with Python, indentation based syntax makes Haskell unusable --HAXUS THE GREAT
Haskell confirmed for indentation based shit.
Stick with Symta.

Has anyone here written a complete program in haskell?
If so, can you paste the source code here for refrence?

>>14
What are you trying to get at? That no one writes programs in Haskell? If so, take a look at xmonad's source.

>>15
xmonad is shit that only autists use

>>16
I merely pointed it out as a Haskell program.

I myself use scrotwm/spectrwm.

>>15
xmonad seems to be the only ``useful'' program that Haskellites source.
I would like more than one piece of evidence, please!

>>18
All the good Haskell programmers are busy helping Wall Street leech money out of the rest of the world, so of course they're under NDA about everything they've ever written that's actually of use.

>>18
pandoc is pretty cool though

>>18
Yesod is also very cool. It demostrate the power of template haskell

OP- I suggest you ask yourself why exactly you are choosing Haskell over all the other more practical alternatives for functional programming languages. Haskell is a pure functional language whos syntax most closely matches mathematical logic. People who use Haskell usually use it for research purposes for things that involve proof of correctness. Scala, Ocaml, F# and Erlang or more commonly used in the software industry to make real world tools and applications. If you have the math background and are more concerned about the design of algorithms and functional data structures, then by all means Haskell is your best bet. But if you want to learn a functional language you could put to actual use right away, Haskell should be your last choice on your list.

>>22
Son, I don't know about that. Is Unlambda really less useful than Haskell?

http://www.madore.org/~david/programs/unlambda/

>>23
stick with an APL like J, or learn Caml if you are seeking functional.

R for graphs and statistics.

I am an oldie, to I use bc/dc and any *lisp*.

http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1252416490/

If none of you have read all of this you should consider it a canonical Haskell language copypasta.