2 ms·

In Haskell (and similar), the language offers the ability to really stab genericization in the heart in a good way, to do it the right way. But 90% of the time,

by mlthoughts2018 8y ago

In Haskell (and similar), the language offers the ability to really stab genericization in the heart in a good way, to do it the right way. But 90% of the time, you shouldn’t and it’s very hard not to. Not a matter of restraint, but the language makes it actually very hard to get simple things done unless you plug into the abstraction vortex. Conversely, languages like Java, C++ and Python (if you use classes), make it very easy to write simple things without abstraction, but virtually all use of abstraction goes off the rails immediately and everything shoots you in the foot, so that good abstraction is not even really a thing at all. Pick your poison!

dack 8y ago
i think i agree with you, but want to make one additional point. I think haskell is actually fine at writing code without abstraction, it's just that people don't choose haskell to go down that path, and so aren't satisfied with those "simplistic" solutions.
emmelaich 8y ago
True but I still manage to go down some rabbit holes in C++. I could use the older STL iterators, but nooo I use a range, with a lambda. Returning a tuple with tie and pair and some more stuff from the latest C++1x standard. And in Linux userland, I just want to check a pid but I invent some smart locking system to ensure I never get a false positive or negative.
- HelloNurse 8y ago
  In C++ the main actual rabbit hole of useless abstraction begetting useless abstraction is premature generalization from what you actually need to templates that can be used with types you don't need, which then proceed to kick you with implicit assumptions, type traits, unforeseen subtle type distinctions like those that come up in Haskell. Other kinds of "stuff from the latest C++1x standard" tend to consist of relatively harmless novel ways to express something, usually not intrinsically complex and, when inappropriate, causing only localized damage (typically puzzling syntax or slightly wrong declarations with no impact on unedited code parts, even in the same class or function).

dack 8y ago

i think i agree with you, but want to make one additional point. I think haskell is actually fine at writing code without abstraction, it's just that people don't choose haskell to go down that path, and so aren't satisfied with those "simplistic" solutions.

emmelaich 8y ago

True but I still manage to go down some rabbit holes in C++. I could use the older STL iterators, but nooo I use a range, with a lambda. Returning a tuple with tie and pair and some more stuff from the latest C++1x standard. And in Linux userland, I just want to check a pid but I invent some smart locking system to ensure I never get a false positive or negative.

HelloNurse 8y ago
In C++ the main actual rabbit hole of useless abstraction begetting useless abstraction is premature generalization from what you actually need to templates that can be used with types you don't need, which then proceed to kick you with implicit assumptions, type traits, unforeseen subtle type distinctions like those that come up in Haskell. Other kinds of "stuff from the latest C++1x standard" tend to consist of relatively harmless novel ways to express something, usually not intrinsically complex and, when inappropriate, causing only localized damage (typically puzzling syntax or slightly wrong declarations with no impact on unedited code parts, even in the same class or function).