2 ms·

I somewhat agree but I think there are two things wrong with tacit style in Haskell: 1. It is usually taken too far (indeed I think flip is probably too far an

I somewhat agree but I think there are two things wrong with tacit style in Haskell: 1. It is usually taken too far (indeed I think flip is probably too far and (.).(.) is certainly too far. I’m also not a big fan of eg fmap.fmap) 2. (.) is the wrong way round. Code reads much better if it has type (a -> b) -> (b -> c) -> (a -> c) In APL or J was I don’t have enough experience to say other than that I find it difficult to read but the puzzle is amusing

dancek 8y ago
That comes down to what code is easiest to read, and that is different for different people. If playing with the APL family has taught me something, it's that what someone sees as a completely incomprehensible mess might be very readable and intuitive to another. I personally have a hard time understanding almost any point-free Haskell code and deciphering a line of J might take me an hour. But as long as it's readable to the intended audience it's alright. Of course it isn't sometimes.