hakyll VS hoogle

Honestly, I've had a great experience with Hakyll for static site generation. There's a bit of a learning curve to effectively use the library/framework, but in my opinion the learning curve is much lower than Yesod/Fay. If all you need is to build static website pages, I'd suggest Hakyll.

Hakyll

Hi there. A friend of mine wanted to publish a blog/site at both French and English. I told him about static generators and Hakyll from u/jaspervdj but the internationalization piece was missing. Of course there are other generators with internationalization but... Well here is one for Hakyll. * Generator source code * Use case and its source code --- If it already exists, ‏‏‎ please hide that fact from me. If not and if you enjoy it, please use it at will. There is a public docker image at registry.gitlab.com/swi18ng/swi18ng:latest for quick testing purpose if needs be (don't forget to add -e LANG=C.UTF8 if you use some special characters). And of course, don't hesitate to give me some feedback. This would be greatly appreciated! > P.

This info is relevant because Hakyll application requires to be complied before it generates the pages, and the compilation process of Haskell is a pretty expensive (computationally saying). Although, the executable is incredible fast, due to great work made by the compiler. This processing cost will be discussed soon.

Btw there is a static page generator utilizing pandoc directly: hakyll[1]. Since it's configuration is done via haskell source code file, you need to be willing to learn a bit of haskell though.

[1] https://jaspervdj.be/hakyll/

Hakyll (Haskell) (website| GitHub)

Ideally like this: https://zio.dev/reference/#concurrency

Or this: https://hoogle.haskell.org/?hoogle=fork

{ "customLocalFormatters.formatters": [ { "command": "make format", "languages": ["haskell"] } ], "emeraldwalk.runonsave": { "commands": [ { "match": "*.hs", "isAsync": true, "cmd": "make retag retag_file=${file}" } ] }, "ghcid.command": "make ghcid", "goto-documentation.customDocs": { "hs": "https://hoogle.haskell.org/?hoogle=${query}" } }

You had a look at Hoogle?

https://hoogle.haskell.org/

For some type signatures there is (are) only one (or only a few) meaningful implementation(s).

I'm in the middle on operators. I like being able to define my own, but I understand how it's challenging to figure out what the hieroglyphics mean when you're not familiar with them. https://hoogle.haskell.org/ can be a help here

> In something like Haskell I need to know upfront what I may do with some "object". The IDE can't help me discover the methods I need. All it can do is to show me all available functions in scope.

Sorry, but this just isn't true. Hoogle <https://hoogle.haskell.org/> searches function by type, fuzzily: ask for functions whose first parameter is the type of the object-like thing, and you'll get just what you're looking for. And it's perfectly possible to run hoogle locally and integrate it with your editor.

Now, the tooling for a language like Java have had several centuries more of aggregate development work done on them compared to Haskell's tools, and if that polish is a difference-maker for you, that's fine! But it's not a fundamental limitation, and claiming it is is just fud.

In my perusals into the Haskell ecosystem, discovering Hoogle[1] was definitely a revelation on the power of a strongly-typed language. Sometimes, you know the _shape_ of the thing you are looking for, but not the name. The ability to search a repository of packages for all functions conforming to a certain type signature (e.g., (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]) is a superpower.

[1] https://hoogle.haskell.org/

which is quite a bit more readable. You can even search Hoogle for x -> HashMap x y -> y and find it, try it!

https://hoogle.haskell.org/?hoogle=x%20-%3E%20HashMap%20x%20...

Haskell has hoogle, which searches Hackage for functions matching names, type signatures, etc.

Hello, I am wondering if there is something like https://hoogle.haskell.org for the rust language.