Jezen Thomas

Jezen Thomas Jezen Thomas

I'm a Haskell/Elm programmer, the founder of NBM, co-founder of Comparestack, and a public speaker. Occasionally I write about technology, and currently I am perpetually travelling the world. Find me on Instagram, or on GitHub, or write me an email.

Haskell Day Two

The second day of Haskell studies revisits functional programming concepts that we’ve seen in other languages already. What I’m finding interesting is that the previous functional languages give you some breathing room, whereas Haskell forces you into a purely functional mindset.

For example: every Haskell function has only one parameter. It may look as though functions can have multiple parameters, but what’s happening behind the scenes is that each parameter is being split into its own partially-applied function. Every multiple-parameter function in Haskell is curried. Mr. Spock nods in approval.

  1. Sorting lists
  2. Parsing numbers
  3. Function composition and lazy evaluation
  4. Currying
  5. Thoughts

Sorting lists

Unsurprisingly, Haskell comes with list-sorting functions out of the box. You can fire up GHCI and try:

Write a sort that takes a list and returns a sorted list.

I have limited knowledge of sorting algorithms, and bubblesort is the only one I could explain or express in code. I spent some time trying to implement a bubblesort in Haskell, but I’m fairly certain you need to store some intermediate values somewhere, which is one of those things that Haskell just doesn’t do.

I found an implementation on Rosetta Code which I’ll paste in. Do I understand how it works? Yes, kind of, but not well enough to explain it to a six year old. It doesn’t look very much like what I had come up with on my own, so I feel that I’m kind of being thrown in at the deep end here.

I read/heard somewhere — I don’t remember where — that functional programming is naturally more intuitive because it allows you to solve problems at a higher level of abstraction than OOP. Call me naïve, but I don’t think of implementing sorting algorithms as a high-level problem. Perhaps the value in this exercise is in emphasising the idea that different languages are better suited to certain types of problems. If I really wanted to come close to the machine and think about sorting algorithms, I would probably reach for a tool like C instead.

Parsing numbers

Write a Haskell function to convert a string to a number. The string should be in the form of $2,345,678.99 and can possibly have leading zeros.

I began this problem late at night; short on patience and with an abundance of sarcasm. I wrote a function that takes exactly the described string, and returns exactly that value as a floating point number.

I’m not a Star Trek fan, but my understanding of Mr. Spock is that he lacks a sense of humour. The language-to-film-character simile couldn’t have been stronger here because instead of acknowleding that my function was light-hearted and poorly-written, I was given back exactly what I asked of the compiler — degree of accuracy included.

When I remove the type signature, Haskell does actually return me the value I expect. This makes me ask myself “Why do I try to tell the compiler what I want when it always knows better than me?”

Try again. My Google-fu helped me find a way to cast a string of numbers to an actual number with read <value> :: <type>, and a way to filter unwanted characters from a string.

My naïve function works for numeric strings in one format. To make it more robust, I could add a pattern match that returns a condescending message to the user for unexpected input. Then, naturally:

Function composition and lazy evaluation

Write a function that takes an argument x and returns a lazy sequence that has every third number, starting with x. Then, write a function that includes every fifth number, beginning with y. Combine these functions through composition to return every eighth number, beginning with x + y.

Haskell’s lazy sequences are in the form of a recursive list-build, which I find quite elegant. The book provides an example which gives me a good starting point for the first two functions.

Each of these functions calls itself and recursively appends the input plus three or five to a list starting with the input. If for whatever reason I actually wanted a function that provides a lazy sequence in steps of eight, I would follow the above form and add eight to the input. This defeats the purpose of the exercise, so I went away and thought about how this could work.

My everyThird and everyFifth functions are expecting integers as input, but they return lists. This means I can’t simply pipe the output of one function to the input of another. I would have to somehow extract an integer from the list it produces.

If my everyEighth function is to start from 1, I’m going to want to add three to it with the everyThird function. I extract a list of two numbers from everyThird, and then take one which has had the addition applied.

Sure enough, this returns 4. We can nest this as a parameter we pass to everyFifth, and then do the same trick to extract the result. Here’s the entire function with nesting:

Next time someone bitches about lisp languages having too many parentheses, show them that.

Haskell’s function composition — at least, as I understand it — is some syntactic sugar we can use to make deeply nested function calls easier to read. Here’s how the function looks when we flatten it out with the dot operator:

This is an improvement, but after asking some Haskell developers on IRC, I learned we can improve this further with the list index operator (!!). List are zero-indexed, so I’m accessing index 1:


Use a partially applied function to define a function that will return half of a number and another that will append \n to the end of any string.

Writing partially-applied functions is trivial in Haskell. In fact, if you look behind the scenes it turns out pretty much everything is done with partially-applied functions.


I remember reading that Haskell’s learning curve is not steeper than other languages, it’s just longer. I can see that. I’m enjoying the constraint of having to write code in a purely functional style; much more than writing hybrid code with Scala. Perhaps my mind will change when I come to doing IO in Haskell. Perhaps not.