Okay /g/ give me the lowdown I want to start learning Haskell

>>58683290
it isn't

>>58683324
I'm assuming it would be difficult to get any use out of it though or am I mistaken on this as well?

>>58683356
Yeah, you basically are.

Haskell is a meme. Learn C instead

>>58683290

Learn scheme/lisp instead, hasklel is lame.

>>58683290
You'll automatically learn what lambda calculus is about by learning a functional programming language (like haskell)

>>58684372
use this op
and go 100%
you can do anything in C

haskell is so shit that even decoding json is a pain the ass
don't even mention changing complex structures (you have to use zippers)

also, the meme word monad makes it harder for some reason (they coulda called it IO type)

only use it for puzzles, because it's very expressive

>>58685030
And yet, doing any project Euler problems in c takes you ten times as long to code, and worse than ten times as long to run the resulting binary.

Different langues for different purposes.

>>58683290

Don't learn Haskell. Lazy-evaluation by default is a horrific design choice that cripples the language's speed, memory usage, and predictability.

If you want to learn a functional language, learn Ocaml or F#. They have their own issues, but neither of them have a crippling design flaw as a cornerstone of the language like Haskell or Lisp.

>>58685780
Haskell has optional strictness.

OCaml and F# are fundamentally crippled by their limited type systems.

>>58685651
I suppose it does matter if you're trying to do Euler problems or if you're trying to actually do pretty much anything except Euler problems. Haskell for Euler problems, C for useful stuff seems like a pretty good rule. Thanks.

>>58685837
A good deal of problems at my work are close to the Euler ones, but admittedly I work in a lab. I sure as hell wouldn't use Haskell for text processing, or writing a driver :)

>>58685802

You have a very strange definition of "crippled". Not many languages have type systems as sophisticated as Haskell, and if your implication is that any language that doesn't have a type system as sophisticated as Haskell is crippled, sorry, but you're kind of an idiot.

>>58685780
> crippling design flaw as a cornerstone of the language
> Lisp.

I see what you did there...

>>58686141

Homoiconicity is an even bigger boat-anchor feature than lazy evaluation. It enables extreme levels of autistic metaprogramming and slipshod language extension, ensuring that every Lisp programmer invents their own domain specific language that only they comprehend fully. Which is okay as long as you don't actually expect anybody else to look at your code and understand what the fuck is going on.

The concept also paints your syntax into a corner, making it incredibly difficult to read compared to ALGOL-style languages. Lisp using s-expressions wasn't a stroke of genius, it was a product of nobody knowing how the fuck to write a decent parser in 1958. In 2017, I want my code to look a littler nicer than a glorified abstract syntax tree.