codeworld VS haskell-template

Code World[1] is a great project that addresses a number of the problems from the article, with an eye towards using Haskell to teach children basic math and programming simultaneously. Code World directly addresses a number of the obstacles outlined in this article:

1. Using an online editor with a rich built-in library removes any toolchain problems.

2. A custom standard library simplifies pedagogically unnecessary details like Foldable

3. The custom standard library also avoids currying (f(a, b) for functions rather than f a b)

4. Custom error messages improve the feedback students get from the compiler

I would highly recommend Code World to anybody looking to teach programming with Haskell. If you want to teach Haskell in a way that fits the existing ecosystem, it's also possible to run Code World without the custom standard library[2].

[1]: https://code.world/#

[2]: https://code.world/haskell#

Alternatively, I'm a big fan of https://code.world which is specifically geared towards learners who want to work up to making simple games. It's kind of a toy, but imo resembles a "real" programming language a lot more than other educational programming languages

Loose connection, but made me remember https://code.world/ uses a Haskell-like functional language to define still pictures, animations, or even games.

I second gloss! It's a bit limited (no sound, fonts, nor even text centering, but you do have support for vector and bitmap graphics, color manipulation, mouse, keyboard, and animations), but it's so, so easy to use that I not only recommend it (or the similar Code World) for anybody's first game, I still use it for my newer games.

Try https://code.world/

Two that I can think of:

- Bootstrap teaches a toned-down version of Racket (i.e. Scheme): https://bootstrapworld.org/materials/spring2021/en-us/course... . It's taught in some schools as well as a comp sci curriculum.

- https://code.world/ teaches using a toned-down version of Haskell. To my knowledge it's not used in schools.

I had the silly 'fromString' error you get when using RebindableSyntax but had forgotten what to do next. Quick Google search and I hit on codeworld #59.

That's a matter of tooling and environment. You can have a look at examples of drawing animations with physics simulation and user input at https://code.world. It's pure Haskell code without any scary abstractions, just functions from state to the next state.

I'm not a user myself, but I understand Lambdabot and mueval depend on it. More generally, anything that executes Haskell code supplied by untrusted users would fit the bill. I don't know if CodeWorld for example allows user-supplied modules, but if it did they'd have to be Safe.

10:19 < gentauro> here we go again -> https://old.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/msa3oq/safe_haskell/ 10:19 < gentauro> why the heck are people so eager to remove `Safe Haskell`? 10:20 < nut> I've used foldr the other day for traversing the list backwards: https://leetcode.com/problems/next-greater-element-i/discuss/1161837/6-lines-Haskell-Implementation 10:20 < gentauro> the single feature that makes Haskell unique and allow us to write `sound` code will be removed? 10:20 < gentauro> :( 10:20 < nut> But not sure about its performance 10:20 < gentauro> anybody of for designning a new programming language that takes Safe Haskell as the core? 10:22 < Rembane> nut: If you're doing O(1) in the function used in foldr, the whole thing should be O(n) 10:23 < nut> Rembane: and recursive function calls too, O(1) ? 10:24 < nut> I mean function calls should have a bit more overhead 10:24 < c_wraith> gentauro: because no one knows what it does, no one knows what it should do, and no one wants to maintain code that is clearly not used by enough people for there to be a shared understanding 10:24 < Rembane> nut: Almost none, and even if they have, they do not affect the O-part, it just adds a constant to each operation 10:26 < c_wraith> gentauro: most notably, no one agrees on what "safe" means, and Safe Haskell doesn't have an opinion. It just reports what modules say. 10:26 < gentauro> c_wraith: I would argue that people know what it does. It enforces "correctness". But, if you look enough into Haskell packages, you realize that (way) to many people tend to take the shortcuts and just `inject` here and there stuff 10:26 < gentauro> removing the possibility of a the users to rely on the packages 10:26 < nut> new question: my code contains plain text passwords for sending smtp emails. after compiling down to binary, is it safe to distrubute to others? can the password be recovered? 10:26 < gentauro> I personally find `Safe Haskell` as indispensable for Haskell 10:27 < gentauro> but sadly, I'm one of the very few 10:27 < c_wraith> Safe Haskell is useless because different modules mean different things by "safe" 10:27 < nut> the compiliation is done be ghc 10:27 < Cale_> Correctness with respect to what though? 10:27 < c_wraith> So it has no guarantees you can actually rely on 10:27 < gentauro> perhaps, I should join https://www.well-typed.com/ if they would allow me to work on the Safe Haskell full-time xD 10:28 * gentauro who would sponsor this? Simon Marlow (FB)? or SPJ (MS)? 10:28 < nut> or does ghc has some kind of mechanics to encrypt the code? 10:28 < gentauro> c_wraith: it does 10:29 < gentauro> when I turn on safe haskell, I can't use `Data.Text` because there is some `unsafePerformIO` 10:29 < gentauro> I like that GHC tells me that 10:29 < c_wraith> Only because the text package decided to tell you that 10:30 < c_wraith> If a package decided not to tell you, you wouldn't know 10:30 * gentauro «when I turn on safe haskell» should be «when I turn on safe haskell and add `-XSafe -fpackage-trust -trust = base`» 10:31 < gentauro> c_wraith: how come? How do you tell? 10:31 < gentauro> my understanding is that packages are infered to be safe or unsafe right? 10:31 < gentauro> by GHC 10:32 < gentauro> if a package is unsafe, you can't mark it as safe. You can mark it as trustworthy 10:32 < c_wraith> that only gets you unsafe things from base 10:32 < c_wraith> what about other unsafe things? 10:33 < gentauro> c_wraith: https://gitlab.com/uniprocess/haskell-template/-/blob/master/pkg/uniprocess/package.yaml#L37-47 10:34 < gentauro> this is how I trust packages that I want to use 10:34 < c_wraith> If you're trusting array, you've already got no safety 10:35 < gentauro> c_wraith: how come? 10:36 < gentauro> you understand that you are allowed to use FFI and code is still Safe right? http://blog.stermon.com/articles/2019/02/04/haskell-usage-of-malloc-free-is-safe.html 10:36 < gentauro> it's the way you expose your logic 10:37 < gentauro> in my snippet, I use a lot of FFI, but, since all my logic exposes IO in the signatures it's fine as the consumer will understand that something happens under the hood 10:38 < gentauro> what tends to happen with a lot of libraries is that `peeps` hide `IO`. Search (CTRL+F Main.hs) http://blog.stermon.com/articles/2019/02/09/haskell-bitonic-sorter-concurrent.html 10:39 < gentauro> you can see that I `remove` IO in `trust = unsafePerformIO . sort`. If I do this, I need to tell people using my logic that "I'm doing some `nasty` stuff under the hood, so be aware"