4 ms·

That "explainabrag" pissed me off too. I feel like that kind of thing is super typical among Haskell bloggers.

by pzone 8y ago

jcelerier 8y ago
especially when "performant" means "11.5 average FPS when making a breakout game clone with 12 bricks on Android" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5-dFlt7iyc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5-dFlt7iyc ... and being happy that it then can run at 450 fps on a desktop computer with non-negligible manual optimization work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXxwYYNZhU8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXxwYYNZhU8
- int_index 8y ago
  Experiments with running Haskell on Android using idealised FRP frameworks such as Yampa are not representative of Haskell performance in general. Haskell allows you to write fast code, it doesn't safeguard you from writing slow code.
peteretep 8y ago
At first I thought it was a joke along the lines of "A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?", but no, it seems to be being said non-ironically.
- wtetzner 8y ago
  How is this the same thing? - polymorphic lambda calculus: Lambda calculus with generics - lazy evaluation: Well, lazy evaluation. Not sure how else to describe this - algebraic data types: Again, how else to describe this? Put in a full description of what algebraic data types are? - type classes: Haskell has type classes. I really don't see what the problem is. If you're coming in to an article about dependent types, and you don't know what these things are, I think don't think the reasonable response is for the author to explain all of it to the reader. This isn't a beginner's introduction to Haskell.
empath75 8y ago
You’re not the intended audience for this. For people with an academic cs background, it’s perfectly readable.
xelxebar 8y ago
I dunno. It can just be that the intended audience is expected to know these terms already. It'd be weird to call any Nature paper an explainbrag simply because it uses field-specific terminology. Personally, when little things like that piss me off, I find it more helpful to introspect "why do I have such a strong emational reaction to this little thing?" than to go about laying moral judgement. I find this approach is especially good at promoting effective communication in places where it's easy to misinterpret intenions, like text.

That "explainabrag" pissed me off too. I feel like that kind of thing is super typical among Haskell bloggers.

by pzone 8y ago

That "explainabrag" pissed me off too. I feel like that kind of thing is super typical among Haskell bloggers.

especially when "performant" means "11.5 average FPS when making a breakout game clone with 12 bricks on Android" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5-dFlt7iyc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5-dFlt7iyc ... and being happy that it then can run at 450 fps on a desktop computer with non-negligible manual optimization work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXxwYYNZhU8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXxwYYNZhU8

int_index 8y ago
Experiments with running Haskell on Android using idealised FRP frameworks such as Yampa are not representative of Haskell performance in general. Haskell allows you to write fast code, it doesn't safeguard you from writing slow code.

peteretep 8y ago

At first I thought it was a joke along the lines of "A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?", but no, it seems to be being said non-ironically.

wtetzner 8y ago
How is this the same thing? - polymorphic lambda calculus: Lambda calculus with generics - lazy evaluation: Well, lazy evaluation. Not sure how else to describe this - algebraic data types: Again, how else to describe this? Put in a full description of what algebraic data types are? - type classes: Haskell has type classes. I really don't see what the problem is. If you're coming in to an article about dependent types, and you don't know what these things are, I think don't think the reasonable response is for the author to explain all of it to the reader. This isn't a beginner's introduction to Haskell.

empath75 8y ago

You’re not the intended audience for this. For people with an academic cs background, it’s perfectly readable.

xelxebar 8y ago

I dunno. It can just be that the intended audience is expected to know these terms already. It'd be weird to call any Nature paper an explainbrag simply because it uses field-specific terminology. Personally, when little things like that piss me off, I find it more helpful to introspect "why do I have such a strong emational reaction to this little thing?" than to go about laying moral judgement. I find this approach is especially good at promoting effective communication in places where it's easy to misinterpret intenions, like text.