|
|
|
|
|
|
by silluk
3467 days ago
|
|
|
I've been coming back to Haskell sporadically over the past couple of months. Every time I do I find the documentation for things like Prelude to be excellent since that's stuff that I already understand but when trying to dive head-first into a new library I end up with 50 tabs open at various points in the doc to try to keep track of all the different parts. For libraries like megaparsec that have not only great documentation but tutorials and examples available it's often much easier to go in and read the "raw" documentation. Haskell isn't like C++ or other imperative languages in that you don't have "these are the method you can use on this class. Good chance you can figure it out from there". That's why I think that Haskell benefits from good example more than "conventional" languages. Disclaimer: I'm very much a Haskell noobie |
|
|
No, but for this case, type holes are much more powerful. You always have an I have X, I want Y, what functions are there that are X -> Y?
Hoogle is more powerful than anything I've seen on any other language. (If I could only make it use all the local packages, instead of the pre-built index. I'm sure there's a way.)
Haskell has also more need for documentation than most other languages, so hoogle is still not enough. That's the problem, not lack of docs.