@jfdm @pigworker "We" don't do this, but the Racket folk have done it for decades. It's a shame we don't have language levels in Haskell. It's even more of a shame that the language is actively heading in the opposite direction.

@jfdm @pigworker I definitely like this analogy with woodworking because it is meaningful at several levels. You do as fine woodwork as your tools are sharp, and so mastering joinery is pointless unless you know how to sharpen the tools efficiently. It is imperative to learn both. You must know not to attempt to sharpen a very dull blade with a very fine stone, this would take forever. You always start with a coarser grit before gradually moving to finer ones. Similarly when learning new concepts, getting a rough idea before gradually refining is more efficient than attempting to learn from academic literature. What I often miss is the fine/middle grit. Rough ideas can be found (but it is often hard to judge their quality or which way they point at when you start), finest/honing ideas are plenty on the arXiv, but the intermediate is nowhere to be found for people like me who left the universities decades ago now, so I feel a bit stuck.