4 ms·

> This is an explainabrag It's not. Maybe it seems that way because you're not familiar with the terms, so it seems like someone trying to name drop all the st

> This is an explainabrag It's not. Maybe it seems that way because you're not familiar with the terms, so it seems like someone trying to name drop all the stuff they know? But if you are familiar with the terms, it's just informative, and serves to situate you in the space of possible language designs. It's a lambda calculus as opposed to a process calculus, polymorphic as opposed to simply typed, lazy as opposed to strict etc.

kace91 8y ago
I'd argue that the informative value is pretty much zero: If a programmer is familiar with lambda calculus, lazy languages, and algebraic types, then there's just no way that person isn't also somewhat familiar with haskell. The explanation is gibberish for those who need it, so its only use is to be self congratulatory for those who don't.
- tree_of_item 8y ago
  Why do you say "self congratulatory" and not "communicative"? You are assuming your conclusion: that it was snobby. But it wasn't. It was just informative, provided, yes, you knew what the words meant. The author is communicating with other people who know about the space of programming languages, and describing Haskell in a particular way to show its surface area.
- staticassertion 8y ago
  I would assume that some haskell knowledge is assumed, and the author is simply framing the conversation by stating their view of haskell as a set of core features, which they named.
- empath75 8y ago
  This point of view is alien to me. Why, when you see words you don’t understand, don’t you make an effort to learn what they mean? How on earth did you ever become a coder with this kind of attitude?
  - kace91 8y ago
    I do understand them, I'm into functional programming and I've toyed with haskell in the past. I'm just aware that such a definition makes it sound more daunting than it really is, mostly because of that "just". It's kinda like the running joke of "a monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's so hard about it?", but said in a non-sarcastical manner.

kace91 8y ago

I'd argue that the informative value is pretty much zero: If a programmer is familiar with lambda calculus, lazy languages, and algebraic types, then there's just no way that person isn't also somewhat familiar with haskell. The explanation is gibberish for those who need it, so its only use is to be self congratulatory for those who don't.

tree_of_item 8y ago
Why do you say "self congratulatory" and not "communicative"? You are assuming your conclusion: that it was snobby. But it wasn't. It was just informative, provided, yes, you knew what the words meant. The author is communicating with other people who know about the space of programming languages, and describing Haskell in a particular way to show its surface area.
staticassertion 8y ago
I would assume that some haskell knowledge is assumed, and the author is simply framing the conversation by stating their view of haskell as a set of core features, which they named.
empath75 8y ago
This point of view is alien to me. Why, when you see words you don’t understand, don’t you make an effort to learn what they mean? How on earth did you ever become a coder with this kind of attitude?
- kace91 8y ago
  I do understand them, I'm into functional programming and I've toyed with haskell in the past. I'm just aware that such a definition makes it sound more daunting than it really is, mostly because of that "just". It's kinda like the running joke of "a monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's so hard about it?", but said in a non-sarcastical manner.