3 ms·

I don't understand the downvote. The main argument looks valid: > If you have several tasks to execute, what is your first thought on how to plan out those tas

by ngrilly 10y ago

I don't understand the downvote. The main argument looks valid: > If you have several tasks to execute, what is your first thought on how to plan out those tasks? A task list (aka list of functions) or a series of composed tasks placed in a single sentence (aka expression)? The answer is obvious: humans think about the list first because procedural programming comes more naturally. This I believe is the main reason why Haskell or lisps haven't taken over the programming world.

platz 10y ago
I'm not the downvoter, but I still don't understand the assertion why Haskell doesn't allow the "task list". There is nothing preventing using these "task lists" (e.g. lists/steps/procedures) in Haskell. In fact, "do notation", a core language feature every beginner learns, features it.
- crimsonalucard 10y ago
  You are right, but no beginner truly understands do notation. It's just magic to them. Do notation is an abstraction on top of monads which is an incredibly hard to understand abstraction on top of functional programming. Functional programming in essence does not allow procedures, but with special incredibly complex abstractions you can simulate procedures. If you program using said abstractions I would argue that it makes functional programming even Harder to understand.
  - platz 10y ago
    Look, I'm not saying Haskell is easy to learn, it's one of the steepest learning curves I know of in programming. But I don't think do notation is what trips up beginners (not sure if this discussion is about beginners per se). It is explained by simple mechanical plug-and-chug transformations that I think beginners understand, but am willing to hear if there is evidence otherwise.. I just think it's the other things that will eventually trip them up (I was only responding to specific claims made earlier). Also, on the point of resting on abstractions being a problem, I don't find compelling, because I'm also sure that Python beginners don't understand what "class MyStuff(object):" is really doing, but if the abstraction isn't leaky try don't need to know right away, and they can delve later.
  - mathw 10y ago
    I never found monads particularly difficult. I still don't understand what the problem is with them. It's just a box with some "stuff" in, a function that makes a new box with a thing inside, and a function that takes a box and a value and gives you a new box with some different stuff inside. The hardest part for me was accepting that I can't look inside the box and don't actually need to. I do get that there are a lot of people who'll look at monads and want to know why the heck they should bother when any "decent" or "reasonable" language just lets all their functions crap all over the filesystem whenever they like.
ScottBurson 10y ago
I didn't downvote either, but the first paragraph seems to me definitely wrong. The rest of the post makes an argument that I don't necessarily agree with, but I think is interesting and deserving of discussion.
willtim 10y ago
It's overly simplistic. For example, Haskell's do notation allows asynchronous programming in a linear "task list" (to use your phrase). Yet most popular imperative programming languages do not; one must instead use callbacks. As to whether programming with expressions is fundamentally harder, I'm not so sure. Since Fortran, most languages have supported arithmetic expressions over primitive numeric types, since they are certainly not easier with an imperative approach (MOV, MOV, ADD, PUSH). Haskell allows one to easily take this further using arbitrary objects and algebras, for example, expressions with drawing primitives, parsing grammars, financial contracts etc. With a small amount of syntactic sugar, you can even make expressions that look exactly like imperative programming (Haskell's do notation).
- willtim 10y ago
  Forgot to mention that I didn't downvote either, despite disagreeing with much of the post.

by ngrilly 10y ago

platz 10y ago

I'm not the downvoter, but I still don't understand the assertion why Haskell doesn't allow the "task list". There is nothing preventing using these "task lists" (e.g. lists/steps/procedures) in Haskell. In fact, "do notation", a core language feature every beginner learns, features it.

crimsonalucard 10y ago
You are right, but no beginner truly understands do notation. It's just magic to them. Do notation is an abstraction on top of monads which is an incredibly hard to understand abstraction on top of functional programming. Functional programming in essence does not allow procedures, but with special incredibly complex abstractions you can simulate procedures. If you program using said abstractions I would argue that it makes functional programming even Harder to understand.
- platz 10y ago
  Look, I'm not saying Haskell is easy to learn, it's one of the steepest learning curves I know of in programming. But I don't think do notation is what trips up beginners (not sure if this discussion is about beginners per se). It is explained by simple mechanical plug-and-chug transformations that I think beginners understand, but am willing to hear if there is evidence otherwise.. I just think it's the other things that will eventually trip them up (I was only responding to specific claims made earlier). Also, on the point of resting on abstractions being a problem, I don't find compelling, because I'm also sure that Python beginners don't understand what "class MyStuff(object):" is really doing, but if the abstraction isn't leaky try don't need to know right away, and they can delve later.
- mathw 10y ago
  I never found monads particularly difficult. I still don't understand what the problem is with them. It's just a box with some "stuff" in, a function that makes a new box with a thing inside, and a function that takes a box and a value and gives you a new box with some different stuff inside. The hardest part for me was accepting that I can't look inside the box and don't actually need to. I do get that there are a lot of people who'll look at monads and want to know why the heck they should bother when any "decent" or "reasonable" language just lets all their functions crap all over the filesystem whenever they like.

ScottBurson 10y ago

I didn't downvote either, but the first paragraph seems to me definitely wrong. The rest of the post makes an argument that I don't necessarily agree with, but I think is interesting and deserving of discussion.

willtim 10y ago

It's overly simplistic. For example, Haskell's do notation allows asynchronous programming in a linear "task list" (to use your phrase). Yet most popular imperative programming languages do not; one must instead use callbacks. As to whether programming with expressions is fundamentally harder, I'm not so sure. Since Fortran, most languages have supported arithmetic expressions over primitive numeric types, since they are certainly not easier with an imperative approach (MOV, MOV, ADD, PUSH). Haskell allows one to easily take this further using arbitrary objects and algebras, for example, expressions with drawing primitives, parsing grammars, financial contracts etc. With a small amount of syntactic sugar, you can even make expressions that look exactly like imperative programming (Haskell's do notation).

willtim 10y ago
Forgot to mention that I didn't downvote either, despite disagreeing with much of the post.