Haskell for sure has a very sloped learning curve. The functional style, different syntax, a myriad of symbols and pragmas, as well as the tooling around it.
The only reason I was able to pick it up as quick as I did was because I was used to Elm due to my job. Then it was just learning about the IO type (and how to use it), cabal, stack, built-in symbols, and the most common pragmas.
But the symbols part is especially harsh, since symbols only hold meaning if they’re universally understood. Sure, the base- language ones are kinda adopted at this point, so they’ll stay, but the fact that external modules can also make symbols (sometimes without actually-named counterparts) adds some confusion. Like, would you just know what .: is supposed to mean off the top of your head?
Haskell for sure has a very sloped learning curve. The functional style, different syntax, a myriad of symbols and pragmas, as well as the tooling around it.
The only reason I was able to pick it up as quick as I did was because I was used to Elm due to my job. Then it was just learning about the IO type (and how to use it), cabal, stack, built-in symbols, and the most common pragmas.
But the symbols part is especially harsh, since symbols only hold meaning if they’re universally understood. Sure, the base- language ones are kinda adopted at this point, so they’ll stay, but the fact that external modules can also make symbols (sometimes without actually-named counterparts) adds some confusion. Like, would you just know what
.:is supposed to mean off the top of your head?Yeah, it’s point-free shenanigans people use for code-golf and satisfying the linter.
If you caught yourself using it, you should probably reevaluate.