Haskell has come a long way in making the small, non-practical parts of the language significantly more practical. Modern day Haskell community likes to think in terms of applicatives rather than monads, profunctors and categories rather than arrows, and traversables for composition, instead of monad transformers (in most cases). The unwieldly parts of Haskell, in practical code, really came from an over-obsession on "monads". 10 years ago, that changed. Many of the abstractions have now been made much more modular, separated into a beautiful hierarchy of typeclasses instead of jumbling everything into a monad.
The problem with monads is that they don't compose - leading to deep stacks of monad transformers, which was the only thing that made Haskell "impractical". Everything else has always been very pragmatic even outside of algo problems. I myself use Haskell far more for practical projects than algo problems. I encourage you to give it a shot!
Now, you may have noticed that I just spit out a random bunch of abstract nonsense on the first paragraph. I mean, what the hell is a profunctor? Ok, so the problem with describing programming concepts is that it takes time and most things can't be summarized. This is why those names exist, to summarize them. Except the names mean nothing to people who don't already know the concept. So I'll give you some pointers on practical examples for learning these concepts. They are extremely simple, but I can't summarize all of them in one comment haha.
The sequence function - this is what gives traversable monads compositionality. I love it.
There's a whole bunch more really good "modern typeclasses" in the base package now that you should check out. They make practical Haskell extremely elegant and easy to use. Here's a few more that you should check out - Bifunctors, Bitraversables, Bifoldables, Category and Semigroup.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Haskell has come a long way in making the small, non-practical parts of the language significantly more practical. Modern day Haskell community likes to think in terms of applicatives rather than monads, profunctors and categories rather than arrows, and traversables for composition, instead of monad transformers (in most cases). The unwieldly parts of Haskell, in practical code, really came from an over-obsession on "monads". 10 years ago, that changed. Many of the abstractions have now been made much more modular, separated into a beautiful hierarchy of typeclasses instead of jumbling everything into a monad.
The problem with monads is that they don't compose - leading to deep stacks of monad transformers, which was the only thing that made Haskell "impractical". Everything else has always been very pragmatic even outside of algo problems. I myself use Haskell far more for practical projects than algo problems. I encourage you to give it a shot!
Now, you may have noticed that I just spit out a random bunch of abstract nonsense on the first paragraph. I mean, what the hell is a profunctor? Ok, so the problem with describing programming concepts is that it takes time and most things can't be summarized. This is why those names exist, to summarize them. Except the names mean nothing to people who don't already know the concept. So I'll give you some pointers on practical examples for learning these concepts. They are extremely simple, but I can't summarize all of them in one comment haha.
sequencefunction - this is what gives traversable monads compositionality. I love it.There's a whole bunch more really good "modern typeclasses" in the base package now that you should check out. They make practical Haskell extremely elegant and easy to use. Here's a few more that you should check out - Bifunctors, Bitraversables, Bifoldables, Category and Semigroup.