1. 26
  1.  

  2. 7

    While some of this is specific to Haskell, such as avoiding damaging stereotypes, I think most of this is good practice for any sort of study group. So I think this article may be better titled “What a Study Group is Not”.

    I am currently participating in a small Common Lisp study group and almost all of these points still apply.

    1. 4

      Thank you for the kind feedback. I also published this on Medium: https://medium.com/@sjsyrek/what-a-haskell-study-group-is-not-470f4aeb9673

      And I wrote a tutorial to accompany it: https://medium.com/@sjsyrek/some-notes-on-haskell-pedagogy-de43281b1a5c

      The “negative” title/style was meant to be a riff on https://wiki.haskell.org/What_a_Monad_is_not which I assumed was well known. Maybe not!

      I agree that this could be generalized for any sort of study group, in principle, and I encourage anyone who wants to do that, but I am specifically trying to target people who might want to learn Haskell. I figure that the broader the audience you aim for, the less likely you are to attract the people you’re actually looking for. I also think the Haskell language in particular lends itself to this sort of approach and the Haskell Book is the ideal accompaniment for it. I’m not as interested in helping people learn, e.g. Python, JavaScript, or whatever, since my goal is to expand the Haskell community specifically. Python, JS, etc. don’t need my help, I don’t know that this accumulative approach would even work for those sorts of languages, and I also don’t know that a comparable textbook is available for them, either.

      But you’re right that much of what I say could be applied to any sort of study group. Feel free to share it with anyone who would benefit from it, whether or not they’re doing Haskell. I’m just not on that quest, myself, at the moment. :-)

      1. 4

        I attended Steven’s Haskell Book study group, up until I had to stop attending for family reasons.

        He was extremely friendly and motivated for us (and himself) to learn. I only wish I could’ve taken more advantage of his time and effort. I would say that for me, the group was a success—I learned and understood what I read and discussed because the focus of the group was narrow and well-defined.

        1. 4

          I totally agree with nixy. This is a great write-up of advice for study groups in general. I encourage you to rewrite the whole thing the same style/structure but applying to programming languages in general rather than Haskell. It could be more general than that (eg learning new tech) but programming languages are a start since existing article is a template. If it was generic, I’d share it with anyone discussing the topic of study groups for languages since it would likely benefit them.

          1. 2

            <3 you and nixy both for understanding what Steven and I were aiming for here. I’ll talk to Steven about a generic rewrite.

            Maybe also removing the definition-in-terms-of-the-negative as well? What do you think?

            1. 2

              I dont know. Try creating both styles and trying them on samples of people with feedback. Keep whst works best for future articles.