Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I promise, you don't need to be a mathematician to use Haskell.

If you've written shell scripts before, you understand how Haskell functions calls are written.

If you've used `forEach()` in imperative languages then you understand functors.

These two things alone are half of the groundwork you need to read basic Haskell code! Of course, the fundamental underpinnings of the language will not appear just from a surface reading of the code, but if you're a person who learns by example then the above two are more than good enough.

If you're more of a linear learner then Learn You A Haskell [1] is an excellent, if earnest, introduction to the language. Depending on your confidence level you may be able to skip a decent way in.

[1]: http://learnyouahaskell.com/starting-out#ready-set-go



> If you've used `forEach()` in imperative languages then you understand functors.

You understand a single (or a class of) functor but I don't think it means you understand functors in general.

You also definitely don't understand how functors fit into Haskell's type hierarchy — its relation to monoids, monads, etc.


Absolutely.

I'm only saying in relation to the idea of "reading Haskell code", it is possible to understand how they work (at the shallowest level) by analogy to `forEach` and to shell syntax.

Shell syntax also doesn't explain important constructs like currying, partial application, etc. But it's good enough that someone can read "boring" haskell code without being intimidated and turned off.


You don't need to understand the functor of functions in order to be productive in Haskell and use functors generally.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: