H A S K E L L T H R E A D

Okay, shoot. If I learn Scheme can I say I know Lisp?

yes

nice tail call recursion, functionlet

Haskell improves on shitty lisps in the following ways-

1- less cluttered, minimalist syntax. Without a billion God damned parens.
2- strong static type system guiding your system toward correctness
3- Including mathematical constructs like monad out of the box so I don't need to implement that stuff myself.

>constructs like monad out of the box so I don't need to implement that stuff myself.

tranny detected

Anonymous, I am so incredibly disappointed in you. You should know that a strong standard library is important for a language to be fun or successful, but that's not the problem. You've reduced yourself to a gargling simpleton whose only mode of discourse is memes ripped verbatim from the most cancerous boards on this site. Rather than come up with an actual claim like "a true programmer would write his own monad implementation every time he needs it" you let your id do the typing, yielding nothing more than an effortless, spineless, tactless, baseless, pointless ad-hominem attack that only makes your stance less appealing to all who read your downright abortion of a post. Everyone who sees what you've written here can recognize that you're just another shameful cell in the carcinogenic blob of newfaggotry that have slowly infested this board. The person you're replying to doesn't buy it. I don't buy it. Nobody here buys it. You've made a fool of yourself.
This is not a toilet. This is Jow Forums. Please clean up the wreckage of your presence.

>t. brainlet

lmao he just wrecked your ass so hard l2code you fucking idiot a monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors dumbass

Michael, please wake up. You're in a coma. Your father is dying.

>monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors
this

what is the best book for learning haskell?

learn you a haskell

outdated meme book, I can tell you don't grok haskell

Attached: 2019-03-25_01_08_47-Over-Time_StarTwinkle_Precure_-_08_25568CB8.mkv_-_VLC_media_player.png (751x590, 809K)

I'm reading this now, it's got a weird sense of humor that I just tolerate. It feels like an extended getting started guide, so I'll probably only use it for the basics and move on to something paid later.
>A lot of people have been asking me to add exercises, so I'll be putting some up soonish.
Never ever

What would you recommend, smug anime girl?

72395012
no (you) for (((you)))

scheme guarantees tco

learn you a haskell and the haskell book seem like the best. there’s also real world haskell but I hadn’t looked at that one

So is the difference between an applicative and a monad that an applicative only sequences actions while a monad can sequence actions and also cause actions to depend on the results of previous actions?

only monads allow to sequence action
an applicative allows to supply arguments to a function wrapped in a constructor. function is unwrapped, argument supplied, then resulting function wrapped again

So the difference between a functor and an applicative functor is that the behavior of wrapping & unwrapping is provided with an applicative, while functors can only fmap within the functor?

no there is wrapping/unwrapping for both the difference lies in the fact that a functor takes a single argument while an applicative can take any amount but Im just a nigger I could be wrong.

Meanwhile in python.
>name = input('Enter your name: ')

putStrLn "Enter your name"
name

I like Haskell, but Lisp syntax is the only sane syntax out there, come on.
Haskell is overly terse.

I agree. Infix abuse and odd combinations of partial application & function composition makes it much harder to follow Haskell code. Not to mention parts of it are so abstract that the actual meaning a function can have is highly contextual.

Based

Haskellets btfo'ed by Agda and Idris chads.