Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Real World Haskell (realworldhaskell.org)
67 points by tsally on Jan 7, 2009 | hide | past | web | favorite | 34 comments



Just finished the book last night.. Some thoughts:

1. It covers the core language pretty well.

2. It covers the secondary aspects even better. Including: Linking to C, performance analysis, parallelization, and a touch of compiler internals.

3. Written in a very readable tone, but assumes it's not your first time around the functional block. I picked up the pragmatic erlang book after this, and was put away at how much "baby's first functional language" it was in comparison.

4. Lots of examples in different areas: GTK, databases, networking, binary I/O. Grounds the reader coming from C/C++/Java land pretty well back in how to use the functional stuff for real work. Also shows that you can get all those tasks done with a good functional style, without mind bending.


I agree with your points. However I know many programmers who don't enjoy this step-by-step nonsense it gives and would rather just have the language definition and a few short examples (not a complete JSON parser or binary file parser for instance).

So I would say: Want a book that'll have you learn Haskell fairly well and give you giant examples, but takes a week to read (or more)? Read RWH.

If you want to learn the basic language, w/o much example fluff, and learn the language in 2 days, read YAHT (linked in a comment below by me).


One thing that I don't like about the way the material is presented in the book is that they mix very important key concepts of the language with examples of practical applications. For example, the chapter about JSON is not really about JSON, it's about how to write a library and package it with Cabal.

I skipped over the chapter about binary parsing the first time I went through the book because it seemed like pretty dull content. Later I returned to it, and about one-third of the way through it I found myself completely stumped and scratching my head. Out of nowhere they drop the state monad in your lap without really motivating it, or telling you what it is or warning you that most people find it a little bit difficult to wrap their head around at first.

At that point I was completely lost until a gathered together enough clues to go searching around on the internet for more explicit descriptions of what a state monad is.


And if you have serious problems focusing (like I do) I recommend http://learnyouahaskell.com/ It was very easy to read.


LYAH was what got me really going with Haskell. Highly recommended.


So what is the sweet spot of Haskell in the Real World? What is its comparative advantage over other languages? Where is using Haskell, and not C, Erlang, Java, Forth, Cobol, Ruby or Lisp going to be a big win?


Haskell has two useful features that are missing from the languages you mentioned:

1. Strong static typing

2. Pattern matching

(1) tends to make development go faster (in my experience) by catching your mistakes early and locating them more accurately than a debugger can. It's also good for performance.

(2) is great for any program that does a lot of stuff with trees, such as a compiler.

However, neither of these features is unique to Haskell. They're also present in OCaml, SML, F#, and Scala, all of which should be easier to learn and start using than Haskell.

The main qualities that distinguish Haskell from other languages are purity and laziness. These may be worth learning about since they're theoretically interesting, but their practical value is pretty dubious.


I would add to that list:

3. Higher-order types

(Yes, C++ has had this with templates for a while and Java has it with generics, but they bolted it on later, after the syntax and many essential libraries had been fixed.)

4. Type inference

Type inference is a REALLY BIG DEAL to me, because it makes programming in a strongly-typed language much less painful, and with that pain gone, I can better appreciate the compiler using the type system to cover my ass.


> purity and laziness. These may be worth learning about since they're theoretically interesting, but their practical value is pretty dubious

Purity is important if you care about safety, maintainability, or paralellism. Also makes transactional memory tractable.


You keep saying that, but I've never heard a justification for it that wasn't totally Kool-Aid flavored.

I'm all for safety in the sense of catching errors at compile time, provided they can be caught with minimal help from the programmer. Proof of more complicated properties should be optional. Haskell requires you to embed a proof of functional purity into every program you write, and this is just not how programming should work.

As to maintainability, this claim is clearly false. Pure programs become harder to change as they grow, because adding and removing side effects requires drastic restructuring.

Of course, most Haskell programs (in my limited observation) seem to deal with problems that are mostly mathematical or computational in nature, like compilers and Sudoku solvers, where these issues don't arise much. But that's not really an endorsement for something that purports to be useful in the Real World.


Re maintainability - it is not clearly false. The biggest problem with maintenance is figuring out what the code does in the first place. When you know that the code you're looking at has zero data dependencies other than its arguments, and what's more, cannot possibly introduce other data dependencies through any of its descendants in the call graph, it relieves the burden immensely.

Re adding and removing side-effects: I think you're just making this up without much experience. Most programs only need side-effects in certain areas, typically in the outermost loops and top-level functions. For example, a very simple single-threaded stateful web server could be implemented only needing I/O access in its outermost loop, implementing its request -> response function in a pure way, and using tail recursion to maintain state between different iterations of the server loop.

Re compilers: unless you've written several compilers, you can't make claims about techniques used in compilers not being highly useful in solving large classes of problems. In many ways, yes, compilers are the ultimate functional programs (output is a pure function of input), but guess what: the flow of a compiler - parsing input, inferring its semantic intent, performing required transformations and generating output based on recursive application of patterns - is exactly the same as the flow of an average web request.


I'm not sure where this idea that it is "mostly used for sudoku solvers" comes from. While clearly insulting, it is also clearly false.

The breadth of code on http://hackage.haskell.org/ gives witness to this, with just on 1000 libraries written over the last 18 months, most heavily weighted towards networking, graphics, guis, databases, and so on.

Similarly, the industrial users , http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Haskell_in_industry , aren't writing sudoku solvers, but are finance houses, defense contractors, game companies, bioinformatics places, hardware dessign, a full range of applications, for a general purpose language.


Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Haskell is only used for writing toy programs. I meant that Haskell people gravitate toward problems that are functional in nature. Many such programs are useful, though rarely in isolation.

If you're wondering where the idea comes from, here's an example. There is a thread on Facebook titled "What have you made using Haskell?"

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2213713570&topic=2...

Here are the responses:

1. HAppS (a web thingy)

2. A minesweeper clone

3. A preprocessor for POV-Ray source files

4. A program to prove graph isomorphisms

5. A parser for boolean logic sentences

6. A lambda expression evaluator with alpha equivalence testing

7. A hyperbolic raytracer

8. An image regression program

9. A program that finds equidistant letter sequences

10. A boolean expression to truth table converter

11. A resolution theorem prover

12. An interpreter of a Prolog basic subset

13. A Markov Chain generator

14. An anagram generator

15. A library for doing computation inside various algebraic structures

16. A maze generator and solver

Some of these are exercises, some are toys, some look potentially useful. But except for the first two, they are all pure-functional problems, and are rather abstract. Maybe this sample isn't representative of all Haskell usage or what Haskell is capable of, but the stereotype, like most stereotypes, exists for a reason.


I wouldn't imagine facebook is a representative sample of the serious developer community...


Some of those are pretty big companies - clearly they're not using it for everything, but have decided it's the best choice for some particular problem domain. Sure, it's a general purpose language, but where's the "sweet spot"? I could write scientific number crunching stuff in Ruby, but that's definitely not its forte.


Problems where robustness or correctness matters, I'd say.


I would have never believed it without seeing it with my own eyes in my own programs, but Haskell's B&D type system really helps a lot in producing correct programs.

I am a relatively incompetent Haskell programmer and I am constantly amazed at how often algorithms I implement turn out correctly after I finally get them to compile.

It's an exaggeration to say that you must embed a proof of anything in your program. You just have to think a bit more carefully and explicitly about how your data is defined.


So in terms of startups, what sort of business should pick Haskell to absolutely crush the competition, which is using things like Java or Ruby? What kinds of real world tasks can Haskell do, right now, so much better than other languages that it's a significant advantage?


Especially program transformations, compilation, correctness proofs, model checking... Other ML-style languages might be good too, but Haskell feels cleaner and more modern, and seems to have a more vibrant community these days.


And laziness is really helpful in constructing fast data structures while maintaining purity. Purely Functional Data Structures is a great read to see how this fits together.


Laziness also scares people away from violating purity


Erlang has lots of pattern matching.


But not a type system like Haskell. I simply don't know enough about Haskell to have an opinion on how much of a good or bad thing its type system is, but it's definitely different from Erlang's. My original comment was meant to get the Haskell guys talking about what practical, real world advantages their language has.

Even if I don't see it becoming the 'next big thing', I like Erlang, in that it's extremely practical for certain types of problems.


I prefer "Yet Another Haskell Tutorial" to jump into the language quicker.

http://www.cs.utah.edu/~hal/docs/daume02yaht.pdf

Its much more technical but for programmers with experience in functional languages, its much quicker to jump in than "Real World Haskell"


This is a really cool initiative. And I see users have already started commenting on sections of the book pointing out the corrections. Way faster than normal ways of type proofing. I have just started to read the book - will do it over the weekend.


This is the true story of seven functions picked to live in a program, and...I don't know enough about Haskell to make a decent joke.

(What I do know is that that is a very simple and beautiful site with a clever commenting system and selections from one of the most incredible icon sets ever made.)


Huh?


He's referring to the opening to MTV's "The Real World".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_World#History


Once you have basics down, it's worthwhile to go through and understand these:

http://www.zvon.org/other/haskell/Outputlist/introduction.ht...


awesome, I didn't realize there was a free version online. Thanks for the link.


The only language named after a 50's TV brown-noser.


It's named in honor of Haskell Curry, the mathematician.


Ahh, thanks.


Sorry, the only one i can think of is Oz.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: