[misterdoubt]

Sure, they exist. But pointing out that they exist is not "show me what I need to know to do what I do."

Instead, the next high-profile HN Haskell link will be the thousandth demo/intro/tutorial that yet again implements some core data structure.

Rather than showing how Haskell is great for working with databases.

Or working with Kafka.

Or integrating with AWS.

Or parsing text.

Or running microservices.

Or any of the other hundred things that I'm going to do a dozen times before I need to reimplement binary trees.

[johnday]

Each of these things is well-explained by the documentation of the respective libraries. I'm not sure why you feel like you need someone to write you a long-form story in order to learn how to do these things; convince yourself of the merits that others already see.

[surt666]

I disagree. Look at the difference in documentation for Haskells Amazonka versus Clojures Amazonica. There are no simple code examples to get you going. Took me forever as a Haskell newbie to get DynamoDb integration working. In Clojure I just copy an example and play with it

[johnday]

Are the code examples in eg. http://hackage.haskell.org/package/amazonka-1.6.1/docs/Netwo... not sufficient?

[surt666]

The situation seems to have improved a bit since last I looked, but I still think it needs a basic howto about how to do stuff. I know you can figure most things out by looking at the types, but that's exactly where newbies lack experience, and you have search quite a bit for the information here, but thanks for the link. It's definitely better than it was

[johnday]

Yes, there is definitely no single through-line from "i know nothing" to "I can now program a microcontroller in Haskell" or whatever. It's a language which grew out of academia and still has a whiff of self-learning about it.

[lallysingh]

Because they're boring and nobody wants to vote them up.