[Lvlug] why look it's the Haskell equivalent of Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby

[Christopher Hever]

2008/8/6 Ricardo SIGNES <lvlug at rjbs.manxome.org>:
> * Christopher Hever <py.ohlin at gmail.com> [2008-08-06T01:42:05]
>> http://lisperati.com/haskell/
>>
>> I've never seen anything like it
>>
>> Not exactly 'up my alley', but I thought someone might appreciate it
>
> Gosh, this reminds me of something else I saw recently...
>
> ...ha!  It's also lisperati.
>
> http://lisperati.com/casting.html

Incidentally, is anyone else here into FP? I was at Lehigh's sci/eng
library earlier reading about how programming has become crippled by
the architecture that was once the most useful (von Neumann) and how
parallel computing is best achieved through functional programming,
which encourages 'genuine' (i.e. referentially transparent) functions
and discourages and severely restricts state modification, which I
know from my Python experience can cause a mess even with the
additional structure that objects offer.

I was really convinced of this argument and figured that, since I know
most of what there is to know about OO, I might as well try to move up
now. I'm reading among other things /Haskell: The Craft of Functional
Programming/ and /YAHT/. FP isn't something you can master in a day,
but it's fairly productive so far; I'm 'getting it'. Writing Haskell
code is very similar to writing a proof of some kind. In fact some of
the background I've gained in proof writing and abstract algebra makes
Haskell a lot more palatable than it was when I tried it last year.
And I'm glad for this, because GHC is a marvel of software
engineering.