Haskell Amuse-Bouche

Google Tech Talk (more info below)
October 14, 2011

Presented by Mark Lentczner.

ABSTRACT

Want to know a little more about programming Haskell than just the buzz-words? This talk will show you some of the joys coding in Haskell through lots and lots of code examples.

No prior experience with Haskell or functional programming required. Just be ready for some strange and wondrous code!

Slides: http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/haskel...
Code: https://github.com/mzero/haskell-amus... (tag v2 matches the video)

• Category

  Science & Technology

[lennyhome]

Programming in Haskell isn't normal, but on meth it is.

[Job van der Zwan]

Impressive, this actually made me interested in Haskell! Could the questions be added as subtitles? Makes it easier to figure out what is actually being answered :)

[atkaazem]

this is so good i'm dieing

[atkaazem]

this is extremely cool&enjoyable!

[basicpidgeon]

The definition of a monad is (basically) just something you can use bind on.

Maybe was a great example.

Remember that >>= takes a Foo a -> (a -> Foo b) -> Foo b.

When Foo is Maybe bind just runs your potentially failing functions in sequence, returning nothing if any of them fail and just the result otherwise.

For IO, it just does the stuff to the values but keeps it in the IO monad (but what exactly is an IO(String) anyway?)

For lists, it concatenates all of the results for each member.

[Alexandre Philbert]

in french it's actually amuse-gueule!

[GNUPeaker]

Lisp had some good ideas.. Haskell now took over and has innovated far further from where Lisp had stopped.

[GNUPeaker]

It does, you just need to use -Wall

[GNUPeaker]

There is no state change that you, as a programmer, have to think about when writing most programs. The program that is compiled from your code, however, contains plenty of state changes, of course.

[GNUPeaker]

Did you understand the first equivalence to bash that he used?

[GNUPeaker]

He shows the (>>=) bind operator which is part of the Monad type-class.

Explaining Monads in more depth requires that you first have a basic understanding of ordinary Haskell functions, notation, type-classes, and a few other things. So it is not a good first-topic to present.

[Stijn van Drongelen]

Monads are easy if you don't know they're monads.