Is Real World Haskell out of date in some ways?

I learned a little bit of Haskell many years ago, and now I want to read a book to relearn it. I’m comfortable with functional programming from recent work in OCaml and Clojure.

Real World Haskell is appealing, but it’s now twelve years old. How much has changed from what’s described in that book? I’m willing to use a book that’s out of date in some ways–i can adjust to changes to the language and standard libraries–but I’d rather have less adjusting to do, so I’m wondering if I’d be better off looking at some of the books with more recent publication dates.

There is (or was?) an effort to update real world haskell. but it seems to have stalled some time ago.

Also, self plug, you might find my haskell study plan useful.

3 Likes

Even when I used Real World Haskell in 2011, it was already a bit out-of-date and not all examples would compile as-is.

5 Likes

Thanks @gilmi, @fosskers.

glimi, that looks like a very helpful resource.

2 Likes

It made it harder to use as an introduction, but it’s really not that bad IMO. Especially since RWH is one of the better resources out there!

1 Like

It is definitely out of date, but I can’t agree more with @vmchale. If I remember correctly, the only very noticeable item was the fact that at the time Applicative was not a superclass of Monad. There is liberal use of the liftM* functions, when idiomatic Haskell today would likely use the pure and <*>. I think it continues to be a wonderful resource.

P.S. Some of the source code no longer compiles, but I have my reservations that it ever did.

2 Likes