3 ms·

I have a similar experience with mathematics. "The differential form expressions for Maxwell's equations are incredibly simple!" Yup, they're simple after you'v

I have a similar experience with mathematics. "The differential form expressions for Maxwell's equations are incredibly simple!" Yup, they're simple after you've done all of the work to wrap your mind around differential forms in the first place. I did it at some point. It was rewarding, and it was elegant, and it was even fun, but it was anything but easy on my brain. Haskell feels a lot like that. That code snippet gave me the same feeling of having to climb a conceptual mountain to appreciate the metaphorical view at the top. I have no doubt that there is something beautiful there, but of all of the conceptual, programming related mountains I need to climb, the language abstraction one is pretty low priority, because the language I am using really is not my limiting factor. I appreciate that others who care spend a lot of time thinking about this problem, but Haskell's got a long way to go before I'm convinced that it's worth using in everyday contexts.

quickthrower2 7y ago
Absolutely, and I have put a decent amount of time in to learning Haskell. But I've been imperative programming since 8 yo, and as much as I love Haskell I can't be saved from finding it hard to understand. I also find it unmemorable - I could get my head around that code if I tried but 2 weeks later I will forget. I also find that code quite abstract, it looks to be solving some kind of problem that usually the language designer (if say you are in C#) would be solving. Haskell seems to be something that leaks it's mechanics into your code, where as C# keeps it for the most part nicely separated from your code, albeit with the effect of giving the programmer less power. No typeclasses etc.
schwurb 7y ago
Note that Haskell makes very few assumptions about the users; the quality and complexity of Haskell code varies greatly. The author of this block is dealing with an abstract topic, resulting in somewhat arcane looking code (I am sure that after some refactoring it would read nicer). It is however very possible to write really easy to understand Haskell code by ignoring its more fancy features and sticking to the most used abstractions: Monads, Applicatives and Functors. They alone are enough to write great code, no category theory, effect library, type magic or whatever is needed. Simple, real-world Haskell exists, it is just not often blogged about.
- munchbunny 7y ago
  Fair enough, I just disagree with the premise that heavily relying on the type system actually lets you think less hard about how to implement your code. In my experience, defining the types you'll use at module boundaries is the actual hardest part. The stuff in the middle is usually straightforward until you realize you need sub-modules, at which point you're defining module boundary types again.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    A good type is like a heads up display about where you are in your implementation. Haskell types are often far away from being that, however.

quickthrower2 7y ago

Absolutely, and I have put a decent amount of time in to learning Haskell. But I've been imperative programming since 8 yo, and as much as I love Haskell I can't be saved from finding it hard to understand. I also find it unmemorable - I could get my head around that code if I tried but 2 weeks later I will forget. I also find that code quite abstract, it looks to be solving some kind of problem that usually the language designer (if say you are in C#) would be solving. Haskell seems to be something that leaks it's mechanics into your code, where as C# keeps it for the most part nicely separated from your code, albeit with the effect of giving the programmer less power. No typeclasses etc.

schwurb 7y ago

Note that Haskell makes very few assumptions about the users; the quality and complexity of Haskell code varies greatly. The author of this block is dealing with an abstract topic, resulting in somewhat arcane looking code (I am sure that after some refactoring it would read nicer). It is however very possible to write really easy to understand Haskell code by ignoring its more fancy features and sticking to the most used abstractions: Monads, Applicatives and Functors. They alone are enough to write great code, no category theory, effect library, type magic or whatever is needed. Simple, real-world Haskell exists, it is just not often blogged about.

munchbunny 7y ago
Fair enough, I just disagree with the premise that heavily relying on the type system actually lets you think less hard about how to implement your code. In my experience, defining the types you'll use at module boundaries is the actual hardest part. The stuff in the middle is usually straightforward until you realize you need sub-modules, at which point you're defining module boundary types again.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  A good type is like a heads up display about where you are in your implementation. Haskell types are often far away from being that, however.