Haskell for Mac IDE(haskellformac.com)
haskellformac.com
Haskell for Mac IDE
http://haskellformac.com/
71 comments
Out of curiosity, did you use the Intero package with Emacs? (https://commercialhaskell.github.io/intero/).
Also consider Dante https://github.com/jyp/dante instead of Intero. Similar (not identical, see the README for a quick overview) feature set, doesn't require stack.
I haven't, but I'll definitely give it a look!
Funny that this would pop up, I just found it and bought it last week! I've been playing with Haskell recently and this app is perfect for playing with example code that you'll read in articles and books while learning.
Another awesome resource is Hoogle https://www.haskell.org/hoogle/ It's super handy if you already have programming experience and are looking for a function that does a particular thing but you don't know what it's called. You can just put the type signature of what you want in the search box and it gives you back functions that'll do it!
Another awesome resource is Hoogle https://www.haskell.org/hoogle/ It's super handy if you already have programming experience and are looking for a function that does a particular thing but you don't know what it's called. You can just put the type signature of what you want in the search box and it gives you back functions that'll do it!
> Another awesome resource is Hoogle https://www.haskell.org/hoogle/ It's super handy if you already have programming experience and are looking for a function that does a particular thing but you don't know what it's called.
Agreed. There's also Stackage's Hoogle, which will search through a ton of libraries as well (e.g. aeson, for JSON parsing): https://www.stackage.org/lts-7.24/hoogle
Agreed. There's also Stackage's Hoogle, which will search through a ton of libraries as well (e.g. aeson, for JSON parsing): https://www.stackage.org/lts-7.24/hoogle
re. Hoogle, also check out Hayoo http://hayoo.fh-wedel.de/ which adds a couple of nice features like typeahead & a 'view source' button.
The code examples in the five screenshots on the homepage are some of the first real-world use cases I've seen of "real" Haskell. It gives the impression of Haskell as a practical language other than an idealized clean-room experiment, so kudos to whoever wrote those!
IIRC Haskell for Mac was created by @tacticalgrace who's an Australian CS professor: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/
No idea if he created the demos though.
No idea if he created the demos though.
This looks awesome. On Friday I started going through "learn you a Haskell" and absolutely love the languages expressiveness and syntax.
One thing that ticked me off a bit was that the package manager and build system (cabal and stack) were a bit incomprehensible to me, hopefully this packages everything up nicely.
Indentation is a bit confusing in Haskell too, but this IDE has built in support for linting indentation.
One thing that ticked me off a bit was that the package manager and build system (cabal and stack) were a bit incomprehensible to me, hopefully this packages everything up nicely.
Indentation is a bit confusing in Haskell too, but this IDE has built in support for linting indentation.
Yeah I always get stuck on cabal and stack.
I tried out Yesod and Snap a while back and while the frameworks themselves were pleasant to work with from what I could tell, I spent whole days messing with package management issues that would render my projects unrunnable after new installs. I couldn't see myself working with Haskell in production for a web project until that situation improves.
Funny I do web dev, mostly haskell and javascript and feel like haskell is a solid rock and javascript is unbearable.
Part of the explanation may be ease of initial interchangeability (javascript: oh yeah we can glue that to this no problem, it's all just like json or whatever man) versus maintainability (haskell: here is your type contract, the closest thing you can get in code to the fundamentalness and immutability of 2+2 =4).
Part of the explanation may be ease of initial interchangeability (javascript: oh yeah we can glue that to this no problem, it's all just like json or whatever man) versus maintainability (haskell: here is your type contract, the closest thing you can get in code to the fundamentalness and immutability of 2+2 =4).
Aren't some Haskell developers also using Nix for dependency management?
I use Nix and it's awesome, but still in early adopter territory. It works wonderfully if you really value reproducible builds and are willing to put some effort in the initial setup, but it's still a bit fiddly and documentation is nearly non-existent. If you have the time and motivation to learn about it up-front and get it set up it pays off, but I wouldn't recommend it to beginners just trying to learn Haskell.
How long is a while back?
A couple months ago. I'll definitely give them another shot, but it was very non-exotic stuff like installing snaplet-postgresql-simple that sent two separate systems into dependency hell.
That's pretty recent.
I'm sure you're aware of stack , solves most 'dependency hell' issues. I'm not sure how much snap is maintained these days BTW, but definitely yesod is actively maintained and should have no dep issues there especially if using stack
I'm sure you're aware of stack , solves most 'dependency hell' issues. I'm not sure how much snap is maintained these days BTW, but definitely yesod is actively maintained and should have no dep issues there especially if using stack
Stack is the easier of the two, that may change with future cabal-install releases. Probably the hardest part is getting the cabal file setup correctly.
Start with a stack template. For an application, the simple template is the easiest.
I’m not talking about authoring, I’m talking about including projects with stack. Idk if it ever worked without me spending at least 15 mind on it.
If you pick a stackage release that has all the packages you need, it's as simple as adding the package to your dependencies in the cabal file.
If your stackage release doesn't have the package you need, you also need to add it to `extra-deps` in stack.yaml.
If your stackage release doesn't have the package you need, you also need to add it to `extra-deps` in stack.yaml.
I really like that it has SpriteKit integration but there are more practical, work-a-day framework bindings that would have sold me. The ideal world a Haskell IDE for Mac inspires is one in which I can build native macOS applications in Haskell. I hope it's on the radar.
> Haskell for Mac integrates Apple’s SpriteKit game engine including animations & physics.
Interesting. How is this done? Is there a Haskell-style interface provided, or is it a thin veneer over the Objective-C API?
Interesting. How is this done? Is there a Haskell-style interface provided, or is it a thin veneer over the Objective-C API?
I use IntelliJ IDEA with the intellij-haskell plugin, which works to some extent, but is fairly slow -- not the least at startup, which can easily take five minutes.
I'm afraid I won't be trying out this IDE, however, unless they offer a trial period (which I can't spot anywhere on the page). $30 isn't too much for a good IDE, but I'd like to try it out before paying in full, particularly since it seems to reinvent the IDE from the ground up, which makes me suspect a lot of the extra functionality, that more mature IDEs have, is missing.
I'm afraid I won't be trying out this IDE, however, unless they offer a trial period (which I can't spot anywhere on the page). $30 isn't too much for a good IDE, but I'd like to try it out before paying in full, particularly since it seems to reinvent the IDE from the ground up, which makes me suspect a lot of the extra functionality, that more mature IDEs have, is missing.
At the very bottom they have a link for the trial version (http://store.haskellformac.com/)
Yeah, I'm using IntelliJ IDEA with intellij-haskell plugin as well! Works quite nicely, but my work is pretty trivial at the moment, so I'm not sure how it will hold up for something a bit more complicated. We shall see..!
[deleted]
Anybody knows some nice IDE on Windows? Or is programming on Windows even worthwhile?
I got Haskell + Emacs + Intero working on Windows [0]
[0]: https://ianchanning.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/installing-hask...
[0]: https://ianchanning.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/installing-hask...
I've gotten vscode working well on Windows with the haskero plugin. You'll need to install stack for this to work correctly.
I finally updated to OS X Yosemite (10.10) and went to buy this app as I had been intending to once I updated, but unfortunately since I made those plans, Haskell for Mac now requires an even newer version of OS X :( Unfortunate... I'll have to stick with IntelliJ IDEA for now -- no plans to ever "upgrade" beyond Yosemite unless absolutely necessary.
Why don't you want to upgrade beyond Yosemite ? I just bought a new Macbook Air and its been nagging me to update.
This is just what I needed. I love Vim and Emacs for daily work, but a good IDE is a fantastic learning tool. Looking forward to trying it!
I bought this last year. Nice product. I usually use Emaces but the IDE works nicely for small bits of code and live programming.
HfM is great to play with and learn Haskell. For a real project, I use Haskell Vim IDE.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Learn Functional Programming with Haskell
Why would I pay $30? I can learn and use Haskell for $0.
This feels like a typical mac os thing, pay for everything.
Why would I pay $30? I can learn and use Haskell for $0.
This feels like a typical mac os thing, pay for everything.
You pay for good software, and a lot of Mac OS software is not just good, but great.
I didn’t bat an eyelid when I bought Little Snitch, Alfred, Parallels, et al. and from the screenshots this looks like a nicely polished piece of software.
I didn’t bat an eyelid when I bought Little Snitch, Alfred, Parallels, et al. and from the screenshots this looks like a nicely polished piece of software.
> You pay for good software
Hmmm, I don't like that statement.
"Great software" is very subjective. I think linux is a great piece of software. I use a macbook for the great hardware but certainly not for the software! Apart from Sublime text all apps I use are free, including hundreds of CLI apps.
Hmmm, I don't like that statement.
"Great software" is very subjective. I think linux is a great piece of software. I use a macbook for the great hardware but certainly not for the software! Apart from Sublime text all apps I use are free, including hundreds of CLI apps.
Sounds more like a religious belief than something which could be argued on merit. I use both Linux and macOS on a daily basis and there is just no question about which OS has the highest quality software eco system.
I like Unix, which is why I use Linux and macOS. Linux because macOS is not an option and work, and I dislike non Unix systems like Windows. I like to have access to a powerful CLI.
But lets face it. Once you step outside the CLI on Linux, it compares very poorly to macOS. Not only do you have far more choices for every type of app but most of those choices tend to be higher quality as well.
Now let me qualify what I mean by quality. Many Linux apps does in fact have a significant amount of functionality. You got quite extensive packages such as Gimp and Inkwell. However these frequently have poorly designed UIs or UIs which are completely different from other applications, and frequently integrate poorly with the rest of the OS.
You mentioned Sublime. Well guess what that came directly as a reaction to TextMate on macOS. There are dozens of these types of modern incarnations of vim and emacs on Mac. Fortunately now we have started getting some selection on Linux with sublime and atom. But it was kind of slow, and while both have quite good core functionality, they are a bit lacking in UI. You notice how a lot of successful apps on Linux have to rely on HTML based interfaces. Which means you kind of notice the UI is kind of slim. Last time I checked neither Sublime and Atom had any real UI for creating and modifying bundles/plugins.
I like Unix, which is why I use Linux and macOS. Linux because macOS is not an option and work, and I dislike non Unix systems like Windows. I like to have access to a powerful CLI.
But lets face it. Once you step outside the CLI on Linux, it compares very poorly to macOS. Not only do you have far more choices for every type of app but most of those choices tend to be higher quality as well.
Now let me qualify what I mean by quality. Many Linux apps does in fact have a significant amount of functionality. You got quite extensive packages such as Gimp and Inkwell. However these frequently have poorly designed UIs or UIs which are completely different from other applications, and frequently integrate poorly with the rest of the OS.
You mentioned Sublime. Well guess what that came directly as a reaction to TextMate on macOS. There are dozens of these types of modern incarnations of vim and emacs on Mac. Fortunately now we have started getting some selection on Linux with sublime and atom. But it was kind of slow, and while both have quite good core functionality, they are a bit lacking in UI. You notice how a lot of successful apps on Linux have to rely on HTML based interfaces. Which means you kind of notice the UI is kind of slim. Last time I checked neither Sublime and Atom had any real UI for creating and modifying bundles/plugins.
Apart from Sublime text
So some software is worth paying for, we're just arguing over which?
So some software is worth paying for, we're just arguing over which?
>Why would I pay $30?
If you think the benefit of using the software is $30 or greater, like anything else in the world.
If you think the benefit of using the software is $30 or greater, like anything else in the world.
i know this is a haskell thread but after trying to grok haskell for years (yes i understand monads) i've discovered F# and jesus christ what a dramatic difference in functional language ergonomics and tooling and ecosystem. it has everything that haskell does (ADTs, type inference, immutability [when you want it], lazy [or eager] eval, pattern matching/destructuring, expression based, and partial application/curried functions) but it doesn't handcuff you to pure (side-effect free) code. say what you want but often writing code in haskell is monad acrobatics because you can't write a simple for loop or do i/o. the tooling is fantastic and cross platform (visual studio/xamarin) with a real debugger, real breakpoints, lightyears better docs, readable compiler errors, enormous ecosystem by way of interop with c# libraries. it's an eminently practical functional language. the `F# for fun and profit` series of blogposts is fantastic for not only introducing the language but explaining the value proposition of functional patterns. of course i wish ocaml had the same advantages (and it does have many) since it compiles to native binary but i'll accept the CLI in exchange for all the tooling benefits.
On Hacker News I've noticed people read titles, then go to the comments section to dump whatever thought is on their minds, triggered by certain keywords like some game I used to play as a child, as an excuse to get something off their chest.
It's very rude to pimp on other people's projects and articles to get something off your chest though.
This article is not primarily about Haskell, but about a commercial IDE made by a guy named Manuel M T Chakravarty — which for me it's interesting, because it's an example of somebody that apparently makes something that he likes, helping an ecosystem and people give him money for it. So it's perfectly on topic for Hacker News and visitors of the comments section like myself, would like to see opinions related to this project.
As for the comment, F# is a fine language, but reading the comparison I'm fairly certain that you haven't learned Haskell and I say this in order to help you — learning Haskell is the easiest path to practicing FP, which given your comment I'm fairly certain you don't grok yet, which keeps you back from being a good F# developer as well.
That you haven't learned Haskell is more of a failure of Haskell's community — but there have been recent projects trying to address that. One is the Haskell for Mac project here in TFA, others are the Stack build tool and http://haskellbook.com, a really good book meant for beginners.
It's very rude to pimp on other people's projects and articles to get something off your chest though.
This article is not primarily about Haskell, but about a commercial IDE made by a guy named Manuel M T Chakravarty — which for me it's interesting, because it's an example of somebody that apparently makes something that he likes, helping an ecosystem and people give him money for it. So it's perfectly on topic for Hacker News and visitors of the comments section like myself, would like to see opinions related to this project.
As for the comment, F# is a fine language, but reading the comparison I'm fairly certain that you haven't learned Haskell and I say this in order to help you — learning Haskell is the easiest path to practicing FP, which given your comment I'm fairly certain you don't grok yet, which keeps you back from being a good F# developer as well.
That you haven't learned Haskell is more of a failure of Haskell's community — but there have been recent projects trying to address that. One is the Haskell for Mac project here in TFA, others are the Stack build tool and http://haskellbook.com, a really good book meant for beginners.
> a commercial IDE made by a guy named Manuel M T Chakravarty
He's not just "a guy". Check out http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/ . He's an old timer in the field.
He's not just "a guy". Check out http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/ . He's an old timer in the field.
> Haskell is the easiest path to practicing FP
Have to disagree here. Haskell is good for learning about advanced type systems along with FP.
But for the "easiest" path to just learning FP, Scheme, SML, even Clojure are far more approachable.
Have to disagree here. Haskell is good for learning about advanced type systems along with FP.
But for the "easiest" path to just learning FP, Scheme, SML, even Clojure are far more approachable.
[deleted]
>It's very rude to pimp on other people's projects and articles to get something off your chest though.
this isn't a refereed journal - you can't prescribe how people engage with the material. i was prompted to post what i did on the back of having experimented with every ide-ish thing for haskell out there about 6 months ago (this one included).
>As for the comment, F# is a fine language, but reading the comparison I'm fairly certain that you haven't learned Haskell and I say this in order to help you
not only is this patronizing but it commits the fallacy of begging the question - i did learn haskell while working on a fairly sizable codebase at my last job. i won't reiterate all of my complaints here (i've posted several times to r/haskell) but the tooling sucks and pure code is a set of handcuffs - golden handcuffs maybe but handcuffs nonetheless. that we disagree on whether pure code is the one true god does not mean i don't understand fp - it means just that, that i disagree! to conclude from my disagreement with you that i don't understand fp begs the question (petitio principii) of whether pure code is the one true god.
>That you haven't learned Haskell is more of a failure of Haskell's community — but there have been recent projects trying to address that. One is the Haskell for Mac project here in TFA, others are the Stack build tool and http://haskellbook.com, a really good book meant for beginners.
i read the haskell book and learnyouahaskell and real world haskell and many many tutorials and wrestled with stack and cabal. certainly they're better than the tools/resources available for e.g. cobol but they do not compare to the ecosystem around other, much more welcoming languages.
this isn't a refereed journal - you can't prescribe how people engage with the material. i was prompted to post what i did on the back of having experimented with every ide-ish thing for haskell out there about 6 months ago (this one included).
>As for the comment, F# is a fine language, but reading the comparison I'm fairly certain that you haven't learned Haskell and I say this in order to help you
not only is this patronizing but it commits the fallacy of begging the question - i did learn haskell while working on a fairly sizable codebase at my last job. i won't reiterate all of my complaints here (i've posted several times to r/haskell) but the tooling sucks and pure code is a set of handcuffs - golden handcuffs maybe but handcuffs nonetheless. that we disagree on whether pure code is the one true god does not mean i don't understand fp - it means just that, that i disagree! to conclude from my disagreement with you that i don't understand fp begs the question (petitio principii) of whether pure code is the one true god.
>That you haven't learned Haskell is more of a failure of Haskell's community — but there have been recent projects trying to address that. One is the Haskell for Mac project here in TFA, others are the Stack build tool and http://haskellbook.com, a really good book meant for beginners.
i read the haskell book and learnyouahaskell and real world haskell and many many tutorials and wrestled with stack and cabal. certainly they're better than the tools/resources available for e.g. cobol but they do not compare to the ecosystem around other, much more welcoming languages.
I think part of the issue that the parent comment was trying to get at here, is that haskell does things the way it does for a reason, and that the type system is much more of an aid to thinking about the problem you're solving than some restrictive handcuff, once you understand what it's doing and why it's doing it. I say this as someone who worked in F# for years, and eventually switched to haskell because it had better support for these concepts via it's built-in typeclasses.
As for what you say about haskell being "monad acrobatics", it can be equally true of F#, or any other typed functional language, because all monads/applicatives/functors/etc are, are just helpful functional design patterns. It would be like calling Factories in Java handcuffs. If you don't want to code using Factories or Monads in Java/Haskell, that's still your choice, but if a lot of libraries in that language are using that pattern, it's probably for a reason that makes it useful in that language's paradigm. Haskell just makes it easier to use these patterns than F#/OCaml/Elm/etc because of its typeclasses, so a lot more people use them. That's all there is to it. I'll grant you that F#'s tooling is a little bit better in places though, but I was never a huge fan of it's project/module system. OCaml probably has both F# and Haskell beat there.
That being said, F# is still a fine language, and I think it's probably a better stepping stone towards learning haskell (and typed functional programming in general) than haskell itself, just because it gives you the option of gradually easing your way into the ML style of programming if you've already had some imperative programming experience before. And that's key, because the issue here is one of shifting the way you think about your programming problems, and there's simply no quick/easy way to do that. In fact, I find that a lot a complete newcomers to programming have an easier time learning how to do things the haskell way, because they don't really have these issues of feeling restricted by the type system, since it's the only way they've been taught to do things.
So overall I would say just keep at it with F#, and check out the F# way of doing things like monads (or "computation expressions" [0] as they're called in F#) , monoids [1], "Railway Oriented Programming" [2], and other such patterns [3], then maybe try checking out Haskell again later and see if it seems a little easier. But there's really no reason to be bashing it regardless.
[0] https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/series/computation-express...
[1] https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/monoids-without-tear...
[2] https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/rop/
[3] https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/series/map-and-bind-and-ap...
As for what you say about haskell being "monad acrobatics", it can be equally true of F#, or any other typed functional language, because all monads/applicatives/functors/etc are, are just helpful functional design patterns. It would be like calling Factories in Java handcuffs. If you don't want to code using Factories or Monads in Java/Haskell, that's still your choice, but if a lot of libraries in that language are using that pattern, it's probably for a reason that makes it useful in that language's paradigm. Haskell just makes it easier to use these patterns than F#/OCaml/Elm/etc because of its typeclasses, so a lot more people use them. That's all there is to it. I'll grant you that F#'s tooling is a little bit better in places though, but I was never a huge fan of it's project/module system. OCaml probably has both F# and Haskell beat there.
That being said, F# is still a fine language, and I think it's probably a better stepping stone towards learning haskell (and typed functional programming in general) than haskell itself, just because it gives you the option of gradually easing your way into the ML style of programming if you've already had some imperative programming experience before. And that's key, because the issue here is one of shifting the way you think about your programming problems, and there's simply no quick/easy way to do that. In fact, I find that a lot a complete newcomers to programming have an easier time learning how to do things the haskell way, because they don't really have these issues of feeling restricted by the type system, since it's the only way they've been taught to do things.
So overall I would say just keep at it with F#, and check out the F# way of doing things like monads (or "computation expressions" [0] as they're called in F#) , monoids [1], "Railway Oriented Programming" [2], and other such patterns [3], then maybe try checking out Haskell again later and see if it seems a little easier. But there's really no reason to be bashing it regardless.
[0] https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/series/computation-express...
[1] https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/monoids-without-tear...
[2] https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/rop/
[3] https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/series/map-and-bind-and-ap...
> helping an ecosystem
If it were open source, yeah definitely. But is this app written entirely in Haskell? I don't think so, otherwise it would at least be a good Haskell promotion.
If it were open source, yeah definitely. But is this app written entirely in Haskell? I don't think so, otherwise it would at least be a good Haskell promotion.
> you can't write a simple for loop or do i/o.
You can often use the "for" function for things analogous to effectful imperative loops. http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.10.0.0/docs/Data-T...
You can often use the "for" function for things analogous to effectful imperative loops. http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.10.0.0/docs/Data-T...
> you can't write a simple for loop or do i/o
for [1..10]
print
If you think writing code in haskell is monad acrobatics, you don’t grok monads.
[deleted]
alternatively if you think writing haskell isn't monad acrobatics then you haven't written i/o heavy code.
I’ve written 60,000+ lines of Haskell, some of which are fairly I/O heavy with low-level FFI, raw and unsafe pointer manipulation, etc. I/O heavy code looks just like any other imperative language: you do this, perhaps extract a result, then do that.
In contrast in pure code people have more tendency to get into monad acrobatics, but excessive monad acrobatics is just code smell.
In contrast in pure code people have more tendency to get into monad acrobatics, but excessive monad acrobatics is just code smell.
I’ve written more than 40,000 lines of I/O heavy code. I had a phase where I felt this way, but really it is a learning issue and you get passed it.
See that is why I eventually decided against Haskell. There are just too few Haskell jobs so investing that amount of time from a career perspective makes little sense. That leaves hobby projects. And it just does not seem to make sense to me to spend that much time on a hobby, when you got plenty of other powerful languages you can learn in a fraction of the time and do more useful stuff with.
As an academic project language it seems great, but for practical work I just don't see it.
I can do a fair amount of functional programming in Swift and Julia, but still make useful stuff without without an huge mental investment.
My life as a professional C++ programmer has made me very negative to anything involving unreasonable complexity.
As an academic project language it seems great, but for practical work I just don't see it.
I can do a fair amount of functional programming in Swift and Julia, but still make useful stuff without without an huge mental investment.
My life as a professional C++ programmer has made me very negative to anything involving unreasonable complexity.
I agree with you. I don't regret the time I invested in Haskell but the payoff isn't obvious. C++ is a very different kind of complexity though, it is so easy to get burned by something that compiles but fails at run-time or is very inefficient due to an issue you didn't know you didn't understand. The Haskell compiler may make you want to throw your computer through a window but you won't think everything is fine when its not.
I've found it quite practical for getting things done, there's a higher learning curve then something like python though. From a career perspective it's hard to recommend anything that isn't one of the top most used programming languages, I'm not sure Haskell or most functional programming languages can do anything about that though.
> but really it is a learning issue and you get passed it.
No wonder, all this time I've been thinking that with enough practice I'll finally grok monads, but no, one simply has to wait for the pass to be on target.
SPJ, hit me in the numbers!
No wonder, all this time I've been thinking that with enough practice I'll finally grok monads, but no, one simply has to wait for the pass to be on target.
SPJ, hit me in the numbers!
Any good open source examples of I/O heavy Haskell code?
I'm a rank beginner at Haskell, understand the very basics, but still feel handcuffed when I stray away from the textbook examples.
I'm a rank beginner at Haskell, understand the very basics, but still feel handcuffed when I stray away from the textbook examples.
Here’s a relatively simple example of a CLI tool that is very IO heavy https://github.com/seatgeek/docker-build-cacher
Thanks!
It doesn't even necessarily have to be IO heavy, just Functor and Monad heavy. But even that is reasonable to deal with just using traverse/sequence, fold, and fmap usually.
I'm definitely keeping an eye on it, and once they come up with better pre-existing project support, and possibly git integration, it will most definitely be a candidate for replacing atom or Emacs for me. The feel of it is just fantastic.