4 ms·
This is my biggest problem when trying to work in ecmascript and when people ask me if I know things like "mapreduce." They've come up with different words for
by boondaburrah 9y ago
This is my biggest problem when trying to work in ecmascript and when people ask me if I know things like "mapreduce."
They've come up with different words for things, and it drives me nuts. Specifically mapreduce: They call filtering mapping, and mapping reducing. I think this is where Redux gets it's "reducers" from. They aren't reducers damnit! It took me weeks to figure out what the hell they were talking about.
- agentultra 9y agoI think Peyton and Co. were right to stick with the mathematical terms when they introduced various concepts to Haskell over the years. We're now seeing the React community go bananas over "Higher-Order Components." It took one look at it and realized I was looking at Reader and thought, why all the verbiage? Now I write my React applications using GHCJS and I don't have to mess around with reading terrible backtraces and all the detective work of figuring out how a type error manifested itself. But these communities are forced to repeat history instead of learn from them. The salient point TFA made for me was that language and evangelism are part of the problem. You can't dive into Haskell if you've been a C# programmer for the last 10 years and expect to have the same level of proficiency you've enjoyed all that time. The most effective way to learn Haskell, F#, et al is to literally start over. And that's a hard sell. The benefit is that these languages weren't invented: they were discovered. By learning them you'll be learning foundational principles from first-order logic, set theory, and category theory that will make you a better programmer. You can take these principles to any programming language and they will continue to work because it's all maths.