Question

Why do the majority of Haskell tutorials omit function type signatures? Am I just have a streak of coincidences, or is there reason for it?

Answer 1

Most tutorials tend not to use the best practices. They want things to seem simpler so they omit optional things for that purpose.

Answer 2

That deeply bothers me, I plan to learn from these tutorials, but they do not use the best practices, how odd I would expect it that they would. However your reasoning makes sense @wio, thank you.

Answer 3

Kind of funny, but i just posted this to another answer. It applies here:

What I would do is look for ones produced by educators or skilled professionals. That way you avoid some the issues with things by armatures. Many people put out some pretty bad advice in training videos due to just having a basic understanding of the topic.

What wio is pointing out is exactly what i am talking about. If it is not someone that really knows the importance of the more difficult parts of the topic they covering.

Answer 4

@e.mccormick I agree with you however the problem with such is the lack of tutorials in OpenGL with Haskell, because of lack of variety one cannot be choosy, not to mention tutorials produced by educators or skilled professionals are generally pay for, and aimed at a audience with a much higher knowledge than me.

Answer 5

Well, it is still why you can't find quality tutorials on a number of topics. As for the number that exist by professionals, they are expanding. This is due to MOOCs and other organizations producing them for pure educational purposes. I found them pretty easy to discover, but I do not know if they cover the topics you want to see:

http://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/teaching/courses/inf1/fp/

https://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Learning_Haskell

I saw some stuff on abstraction, which might cover this topic. Without really looking into more of the links I don't know for sure that will cover it properly for you.

Answer 6

The second link on is a compendium of books/websites to use to learn Haskell, the first one seems interesting more what I am looking for, it has lectures notes and references to a book, thank you @e.mccormick.

Answer 7

Yah, the first seemed to have direct application and the second would need more digging, which is why I said it would need looking into. =) Hopefully it is well maintained so you can use it to find a few really good references.

I find that if I can gather no more than five and preferably no more than three references that cover a topic well and that I can understand, I can get quality information quickly. With more, well, sometimes I spend too much time digging between them.

In fact, this is why I am not a fan of stack(exchange, etc.). They tend to have huge volume but questionable quality. So you can spend a lot of time digging through just to get so-so answers. When added to their hate of re-asked questions, this allows a lot of bad answers to live on just because a better one did not get more love or came late to the question. Now, it is not all bad. I just have run into a lot of bad advice there and find it a waste of time when looking for good info.