4 ms·

I'm neither of those, and I understood it just fine. The term “endomorphism” might sound scary, but once you read the definition, which is just one sentence lon

I'm neither of those, and I understood it just fine. The term “endomorphism” might sound scary, but once you read the definition, which is just one sentence long, it's actually a pretty simple concept. Have fun cramming the definition of any object-oriented pattern into a single sentence. --- Reply to sidlls here: I didn't say that the term might sound scary to you. I said that the term might sound scary in general, to “average” people. Because, frankly, relative to its actual mathematical content, the term is perhaps a little bit too pompous. Also, when it comes to mathematical definitions, I wouldn't say one really knows a definition unless one can use it in a calculational setting.

awfgylbcxhrey 10y ago
(terse && correct) != helpful The art in writing documentation is in effective communication to a varied target audience, not in simply fulfilling the obligation to be technically correct.
- catnaroek 10y ago
  Sure, I don't disagree. I've bashed my head countless times against short, super-abstract definitions for which it is very difficult to provide concrete examples. So I totally empathize with the feeling you express. However: (0) As for “endomorphism”, the definition “function with the same domain and codomain” should be pretty easy to understand to anyone. (Technically, in an arbitrary category, morphisms don't have to be functions, but Haskellers work in the category Hask, whose morphisms are terminating functions.) (1) The right place to define what a monoid is is the definition of the class Monoid, not the definition of every type that happens to have a Monoid instance.
  - grey-area 10y ago
    Haskellers work in the category Hask, whose morphisms are terminating functions This is my favourite haskellism so far in this thread.
sidlls 10y ago
Who said anything about "scary?" You assume I don't understand them, or that "not helpful" is a substitute for "unfamiliarity" or some other kind of similar deficiency. That's not very charitable. I learned the jargon as part of my academic background. That was part of the reason I made the comment. These terms are jargon, or terms-of-art. Knowing jargon isn't the same as knowing the things jargon describes or having the capacity to reason about them well. Similarly, not knowing the jargon does not imply ignorance, stupidity, fear, or any of a number of other negative things.

awfgylbcxhrey 10y ago

(terse && correct) != helpful The art in writing documentation is in effective communication to a varied target audience, not in simply fulfilling the obligation to be technically correct.

catnaroek 10y ago
Sure, I don't disagree. I've bashed my head countless times against short, super-abstract definitions for which it is very difficult to provide concrete examples. So I totally empathize with the feeling you express. However: (0) As for “endomorphism”, the definition “function with the same domain and codomain” should be pretty easy to understand to anyone. (Technically, in an arbitrary category, morphisms don't have to be functions, but Haskellers work in the category Hask, whose morphisms are terminating functions.) (1) The right place to define what a monoid is is the definition of the class Monoid, not the definition of every type that happens to have a Monoid instance.
- grey-area 10y ago
  Haskellers work in the category Hask, whose morphisms are terminating functions This is my favourite haskellism so far in this thread.

sidlls 10y ago

Who said anything about "scary?" You assume I don't understand them, or that "not helpful" is a substitute for "unfamiliarity" or some other kind of similar deficiency. That's not very charitable. I learned the jargon as part of my academic background. That was part of the reason I made the comment. These terms are jargon, or terms-of-art. Knowing jargon isn't the same as knowing the things jargon describes or having the capacity to reason about them well. Similarly, not knowing the jargon does not imply ignorance, stupidity, fear, or any of a number of other negative things.