<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style>So here's my question: how useful is h-99 (are they overrated as learning<br>
</span><span style>tools)? I find myself solve most of them in a "from the scratch" fashion<br></span><span style>(e.g., no Monad, no Applicative, no Functor aside from List and a few<br></span><span style>Maybe). Some of them are paper-worthy, for example the prime problems. I<br>
</span><span style>hope some guru-level Haskeller could do away the missing few, and maybe<br></span><span style>dive deeper into the surface to produce more insights (like the knights<br></span><span style>travel page or the sieve paper, which are both beautiful).</span></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>As another new-haskeller I say: Yes & No.</div><div><br></div><div>"Yes" for
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;white-space:nowrap;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">necessity</span> of several described algorithms and gained intuition for real programming.</div><div>"No" for needed ammount of work to understand pitfalls of Haskell when real programming.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And of-course, problems and solutions are not annotated with there typical real world aplications, they are not obvious for average beginners. Why would I make Binary tree balanced, when I don't know, what I'll gain (except balanced binary tree)?</div>