Haskell Ghc Projects (86) Shell Haskell Projects (57) Shell Ghc Projects (7) Shell Cocoa Projects (6) Shell Haskell This IDE has some nice features that I really like:Code, create, and learn together Code, collaborate, compile, run, share, and deploy Haskell and more online from your browser Sign up to code in Haskell Explore Multiplayer > Collaborate in real-time with your friendsYour First Haskell Application (with Gloss) This is the second of several blog posts meant to serve as a crash course in Haskell for someone already familiar with programming and somewhat familiar with functional programming. Shell (230,222) Haskell (32,265) Cocoa (335) Related Projects. Unsubscribe easily at any time. Get A Weekly Email With Trending Projects For These Topics. This is the version of GHC used in Haskell for Mac.This seems to be based on GHCI's :i command.The design and iconography also feel at home on OS X. Haskell playgrounds support exploration and experimentation with code.If you are on a Mac, you should begin by first installing Homebrew ( Homebrew is a package manager for macOS, which fetches source code over the internet, downloading it to your machine, then configures, compiles, and installs the.Highlight a function or type and right click to get information. It is a one-click install of a complete Haskell system, including Haskell compiler, editor, many libraries, and a novel form of interactive Haskell playgrounds. Haskell 1.2.1.Haskell for Mac (IDE) Haskell for Mac is an easy-to-use integrated programming environment for Haskell on OS X.I imply the mess around the Optional type involving the let-statements and if-blocks. The preference the language authors give to sugar over abstractions. The omnipresent promotion of the God-object antipattern, where in controllers are supposed to do everything.Despite the language being claimed to be functional, every aspect of it is designed with imperative programming in mind. Boy, that was fun! Unfortunately it turned out to be not just some random bug, which you would expect from a beta-product (which BTW Swift is not), but one of many evidences of a chaos that the compiler is.Awful design decisions like the magical behaviour of the "let" statements, where they somehow affect the mutability of the datastructure instead of just the reference. I can't use it as an IDE currently but I'm happy to support Haskell tools development, so this was still a good purchase for me.Probably my most entertaining experience with the language was when I had to use Git-diffs to find out that declaring an inner function in some scenario causes the compiler to segfault. Having limited Cabal support (currently only Cabal packages with a single executable section and a subset of fields, per the website) seems like it'd be a dealbreaker I think all the Haskell projects I work on have a more complex setup than that.At this point I'd definitely need some sort of stack support to run the builds from.I don't really understand how to integrate an existing project at all with this IDE it doesn't seem like I can drag a folder in with Haskell source, only individual files? When I dragged in a file from an existing project and clicked on it, the IDE crashed, as well.The UI of this IDE is off to a great start imo.
Haskell Full Of BugsIn a mutable language, immutability declarations are a godsend. It's getting better, but it's not as stable as it should be 2 years in.The "let" statement, though? You're genuinely the first person I've heard criticise that. I'm a Swift fan, so take this with a grain of salt, but.Compiler criticisms are valid. Atop of all that it's full of bugs and inconsistencies.With things like that the language left the overall impression of being designed by people who are very bad at abstraction and of being targeted at uneducated devs, who just need to quickly hack their way through the app by pasting snippets they grab on StackOverflow.Hmm.Sure, it's got "functional concepts", but it is absolutely 100% an imperative object-oriented language. (fully willing to be corrected on that, though) That sounds like more of a criticism of Cocoa than Swift.Despite the language being claimed to be functionalHells no! Nowhere in any of the Swift documentation will you see it described as a functional language. (for value types like structs and enums, they affect the mutability of the data structure, not the reference, whereas for reference types like classes, they do affect the reference and not the data structure)I haven't seen promotion of the god-object anti pattern from the Swift team at all. ![]() Even worse, it's complicated not with powerful features, but with noise of useless concepts, which are only there to work around the issues created by the other design flaws. That's the crap they choose to do instead of just using the proper battle-tested abstractions.Is that garbage better to put in the heads of the newcomers? I say "No"! Easier for them to grasp maybe? No again! Maybe to use? For Christ's sake no! That's my opinion.You've got to understand that the barrier to entry had to be low for SwiftThe language is anything but simple. However the language goes a long way in introducing redundant concepts just to adapt to that awful framework.Hells no! Nowhere in any of the Swift documentation will you see it described as a functional language.The indirect marketing campaign clearly involved that: all the blog posts and tweets created such a buzz.What do you mean by the mess around the optional type?And even the updates to the language didn't quite fix that. That's what defines essential complexity and we see that concerning one of the most basic constructs of the language.I agree. That means inconsistency of the concept. Considering that constraint, I actually think they've done a pretty good job.For value types like structs and enums, they affect the mutability of the data structure, not the reference, whereas for reference types like classes, they do affect the reference and not the data structureEven in your own definition you have conditions there. This blog post by Rob Napier is in line with my thinking)I especially agree with you in terms of the Swift solution to the "pyramid of doom" - I would have preferred to see a standard library implementation of Applicative or something.I don't think that Swift is simple, though. You can hardly blame the language designers for things that the users of Swift say. I'm only saying that Swift is an awful one.(well, it's a little unfair to talk about the "indirect marketing campaign": the Swift blog certainly never called Swift a functional language, nor did the Swift twitter account. Inventing things, challenging people - that's what drives the progress and that's what I believe in.Announcing Haskell as the new language for iOS and OS X just wasn't an option: Swift competes with C#, Java, and Objective-C.I'm not saying that Haskell is the solution. Classic game emulator for mac 1085 downloadBut think about other languages that tried to tread the same line Swift does: Scala comes to mind first. You don't, obviously (which is fine, don't get me wrong, your points are well-founded) but it sounds like you think it could have been done better. That's why value types and reference types, as well as several other clashing concepts, coexist.I think Swift did a good job of reconciling those concepts. That means compromises in terms of how many new concepts you choose to bring in, and how many old concepts you have to keep. I think the motivation for a lot of the added complexity in Swift, like Python, is to make it easier to pick up, especially for non-programmers.What I meant by "the barrier to entry had to be low" was really that it needed to be familiar to Objective-C, C#, and Java programmers, so that swapping over would be easy. Python, on the other hand, is very complex. But yeah, I've got nothing on this one but my opinion, so I agree, it's a subjective argument. I just don't believe that it wasn't orchestrated by Apple. I mean, most of /r/programming posts were about Swift.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorMichelle ArchivesCategories |