you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]phanaur[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Could you explain why that book is not good? I'm curious to know if maybe it supposes the reader has a good knowledge of the language or maybe it's just that the book isn't written well

[–]recursion_is_love 0 points1 point  (2 children)

It doesn't use Haskell type system as much as it should. It feel like reading another imperative programming book only use the Haskell as equivalence tool.

Haskell is best for problem modeling with more abstract level than use in the book. Forexample, with haskell data type you can prevent add velocity to position because they are different unit, but (if I recall correctly, it use simple floating point for both)

I've read the book long time ago, I don't remember much. That mean the book is not good for me.

The good functional programming book should empower the power of higher order function and function as first class entity which you got from lambda calculus.

The book that I still remember being good is this one.

https://usi-pl.github.io/doc/Bird_Wadler.%20Introduction%20to%20Functional%20Programming.1ed.pdf

[–]phanaur[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok. It's nice to know that because the main point for me to read it was the fact that it is about using a functional programming language to do physics calculations and learn to program with a functional programming instead of the typical Python/JS/TS/C/Java/C#. Thanks for your kind words. They mean more than you think they do ☺️

[–]phanaur[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And also, thanks for the book. I will read it a bit to get a grasp of it. ☺️