Are you already good at programming and learning to code?
Yes? Then Scheme -> Haskell.
No? Then Haskell -> maybe other languages if you want -> Scheme
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-22 15:47
>>8
Could you explain why you recommend this approach?
I'm already proficient in a few languages.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-22 20:46
>>8
Learning to program not learning to code you fucking imbecile.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-22 20:50
>>7
No, seriously. I bet /prog/ would suggest CLOS/TinyCLOS, but I still would like to get ruby and ocaml right. Is it worth the effort?
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-22 21:02
Haskell. Scheme is fun, but a waste of time.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-22 21:11
Scheme is fun *and* a waste of time, but so is Haskell.
You will probably get completely stuck trying to understand monads if this is your first time learning functional programming, so I suggest going for Scheme first.
>>13
Haskell is Scheme with less lines and more features. Why would you write:
(define (f x) (+ (* x x) 1))
when you could as well:
f x = x*x + 1
It's like doing lambda calculus versus algebra, sure lambda calculus is cool, but I'd rather write ``3" than ``λf.λx.f(f(f(x)))"
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-22 21:24
>>14
Yes, Scheme can be verbose, but I'm rather fond of homoiconicity.
But then, you have functors, applicatives, monads and pther stuff that are a bit hard to digest at first. Explain them to >>1-san in a way that even a /g/tard from Reddit can understand and I'll let >>1-san learn Haskal first.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-22 22:10
>>14
If Scheme doesn't have enough features, use Common Lisp
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-22 22:14
Write and play around with your ideas in scheme, you can later re-write them in a language that gives you more performance.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-22 22:23
SML. It's like OCaml if OCaml didn't suck.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-22 23:01
>>14
Because "f x = x*x + 1" is fucking ugly Algol/K&R looking pig disgusting shit and "(define (f x) (+ (* x x) 1))" is beautiful g-dly elegance.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-22 23:41
>>19
+1'd on Google, liked on Facebook, retweeted on Twitter, etc.
Are there any functional languages other than Haskell? Well, there are a couple of minor ones like Clean and Idris, but if you're going for an applied PL, then Haskell is your only choice.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-07 4:56
Are there any satisfying fucks other than my dick? Well, there are a couple of minor ones like Mr. Clean and Idris, but if you're going for an applied prostate, then my dick is your only choice.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-07 4:59
>>26
Why don't you try naming functional languages other than Haskell? So far ITT there hasn't been a single one besides Clean and Idris.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-07 5:05
Why don't you try naming functional prostate pushers other than my dick? So far ITT there hasn't been a single one besides Mr. Clean and Idris.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-07 5:22
>>27
Get off your high horse and stop pretending to not know what everyone else has already figured out just so you can show that you're the one who pays strictest attention to definitions in the room. Better yet, go to Reddit and amaze everyone by stating that Java isn't actually Turing Complete.
PR of a close-stool.
Is that supposed to make some kind of sense?
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-07 7:42
I quite enjoy Clojure because of its access to Java libraries.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-07 7:43
>>32
Close-stool is where the roosters sit. Hanging out at the shit-site you are marketing is like sitting on a close-stool. That is, it is equivalent to becoming a rooster, a prison-bitch. And you are providing publicity for the close-stool.