"The mathematical rigor of a pure functional language like Haskell allows deeper reasoning to be done, and thus more powerful abstractions to be introduced."
Allows or requires? I guess I never really understood the difference between reasoning about code and actually getting shit done.
The thing with Haskell is it is almost like two languages in one. There is the Haskell you learn, with no side effects, and everything is lazy, and you are basically just binding stuff up and it gets evaluated at the end.
Then you have the Haskell that programs actually get written in, with do blocks and actions, if I remember correctly, and it looks a lot more iterative than functional. With actual side effects happening all the time.
The syntax, which is probably the hardest part of Haskell, is totally different.
Very confusing for someone learning text-book Haskell, then jumping into actually maintaining and writing programs, you almost think you have learnt the wrong language.
Allows or requires? I guess I never really understood the difference between reasoning about code and actually getting shit done.
The thing with Haskell is it is almost like two languages in one. There is the Haskell you learn, with no side effects, and everything is lazy, and you are basically just binding stuff up and it gets evaluated at the end.
Then you have the Haskell that programs actually get written in, with do blocks and actions, if I remember correctly, and it looks a lot more iterative than functional. With actual side effects happening all the time.
The syntax, which is probably the hardest part of Haskell, is totally different.
Very confusing for someone learning text-book Haskell, then jumping into actually maintaining and writing programs, you almost think you have learnt the wrong language.