To elaborate a bit, I came from a perl, java background. I'm aware of clos protocols, I've fiddled with squeak and the "here's a test case, give me all the functions that pass the test". Different languages have different strengths.
But golly, Haskell has (had) a lot of hype. Monads, lazy evaluation, random lens stuff is fine and all, but type classes are unreal. you get to specify up front what capabilities you want to buy into.
I guess, just try implementing Num of Float as the first derivative. It's pretty magical how much power the compiler provides. And you _know_ it's doing what you think it's doing.
Haskell opens up a bunch of rabbit holes. but really getting a good grasp on interfaces that don't leak is, well from my background, really really mind expanding. There's a large difference between being real smart and having the compiler enforce assumptions. I dunno. I think the Haskell hype lives up to the claims from type classes alone.
But golly, Haskell has (had) a lot of hype. Monads, lazy evaluation, random lens stuff is fine and all, but type classes are unreal. you get to specify up front what capabilities you want to buy into.
I guess, just try implementing Num of Float as the first derivative. It's pretty magical how much power the compiler provides. And you _know_ it's doing what you think it's doing.
Haskell opens up a bunch of rabbit holes. but really getting a good grasp on interfaces that don't leak is, well from my background, really really mind expanding. There's a large difference between being real smart and having the compiler enforce assumptions. I dunno. I think the Haskell hype lives up to the claims from type classes alone.