|
Two other resources I found useful for Haskell (once you grasp the basics) are the Typeclassopedia and What I Wish I Knew When Learning Haskell.
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Clojure is pretty drat cool. I'm learning it for the express purpose of wrapping my head around functional programming in general. I wanted to go through Functional Programming in Scala, but I felt like I didn't have the FP background for it. What are some good language-agnostic resources for the basics and theory behind FP? It's not really language-agnostic, but Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs is a classic textbook which uses Scheme (a lisp). When I had trouble learning Haskell I switched over to that book for a bit and then went back, it was a lot easier after that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Just a note about Elm, I've found this set of tutorials, Elm By Example and I wished I'd started here. I like the idea behind Elm so far, but it's in version 0.15 and it shows. A lot of rough around the edges stuff. I'm going to stick with it though.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Speaking of interesting math-y books, can anyone recommend a good book on category theory? I've been meaning to read up on it more. Don't know how I've seen this recommended. I read the first two posts and it seemed pretty good.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
sarehu posted:Yeah but those aren't short-circuiting. You can't short-circuit xor anyway
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:I was pretty sold on Elm, until I started to try and actually write stuff. I really hate the stupid "no typeclasses, if you really need it just pass an explicit record around!" poo poo. It's a functional language, it'll mostly be used by people that understand it, and if you don't dive right into monad bullshit, it's a pretty simple concept. I don't think that you should be programming if you can't understand the concept of a constraint. Agreed. I also think the whole "no monads!!!" thing itself is pretty silly. They've reimplemented Applicative like half a dozen times in the core libraries, its ridiculous that there's so many versions of map/map2/map3/... when they could just define them once and be done with it. Is this because typeclasses are difficult to implement, or is this from the "for your own good" school of language design? Or are they just concerned that people will be turned off the language if it has monads in it?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:I'm in the camp that considers this a good thing, although I don't know anything about Scala or Clojure specifically. When you're trying to learn functional programming for the first time I think it's a good idea to use a language that forces you to use it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
AWWNAW posted:Reading The Little Schemer helped me think more "functionally" and that was before I even started using functional languages for real. I also found Scheme to be a good intro, although I read SICP (or part of it anyway).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
I thought STM was supposed to be a superior option to locks, not message passing?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
The March Hare posted:Does anyone have a good resource for gaining an understanding of category theory for code bros who know almost nothing about math? It's OK if this isn't a thing, but if it is I'd appreciate a recommendation for a decent resource. I've seen this recommended: https://bartoszmilewski.com/2014/10/28/category-theory-for-programmers-the-preface/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 16:30
|
|