3 ms·
While Haskell does have customizable infix operators which can be overused and abused, that line isn't a good example of the problem in my opinion. The three in
by nilkn 10y ago
While Haskell does have customizable infix operators which can be overused and abused, that line isn't a good example of the problem in my opinion. The three infix operators there ($, <$>, and <*>) are all extremely common in Haskell code and are built-in to the language.
Every competent Haskell programmer will be intimately familiar with those three operators.
The problem arises when new libraries introduce new infix operators. I find this highly annoying and almost always consider it a code-smell. So honestly we're in agreement in general, just not with that particular example. I consider those to be basically the "arithmetic operations" of function application. Considering the entire language is based on function composition and application, I don't think it's a bad thing for an economical notation to be used.
- bweitzman 10y agoWhile they may be common, they're not actually built into the language. They're just regular functions.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- chadaustin 10y agoSure, they're library functions, but they're also specified in the haskell 2010 spec. That makes them built-in from a practical perspective.