5 ms·

> I mean, Result is pretty straightforward. Especially in the context of "Func" which is already there. Select is a common phrase used in, well, english, but al

> I mean, Result is pretty straightforward. Especially in the context of "Func" which is already there. Select is a common phrase used in, well, english, but also sql, smalltalk, C#, ruby ... and a bunch of others. If I know any of those it's a pretty big hint. > It's roughly the same shape as () and [] and I already know it from html. The entire point of this is that folks who are educated in a language forget how much they had to learn to render a piece of code obvious, instead appealing to "simplicity" and imaginary beginners. I think these quotes demonstrate that's how you're thinking here too.

overgard 7y ago
My point, which you seem to be avoiding, is that words are a lot less ambiguous than symbols. EDIT for additional point: also, since your examples are haskell and C#, let me point out that reality seems to agree with me here, since C# is vastly more popular than haskell. If you're learning something, learning something with less ambiguity is usually easier. Considering that F# is similar(ish) to haskell and has the full power of the .NET platform and is still vastly less popular than C#, I think it's clear which option people think is easier. Easy may not be better, but that's a separate discussion.
- cygx 7y ago
  It's a trade-off, though: Compactness and visual variety can help readability. There's a reason why symbolic math notation won out, and why the most regular and/or verbal languages (eg Lisp, Cobol) haven't won over everyone's hearts and minds.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  > My point, which you seem to be avoiding, is that words are a lot less ambiguous than symbols. Sorry, I don't accept this and you haven't demonstrated it except to say "well we can use an appeal to other things for words, but not for symbols." That really dosn't fly at all, for me. > let me point out that reality seems to agree with me here, since C# is vastly more popular than haskell. If you're learning something, learning something with less ambiguity is usually easier. This isn't actually an argument. It's a hope. Besides, many of the folks in industry learned to program in other languages than the ones they use today in industry, but not languages that didn't exist at all. > Considering that F# is similar(ish) to haskell and has the full power of the .NET platform and is still vastly less popular than C#, Imagine, if you please, a world where people in industry and on Hacker News repea an untrue mantra that one language is "simpler" from first principles, confusing familiarity with simplicity? In such a world, educators would look to what the industry demands and feel that in good faith, they should give those languages some treatment in courses over time. We might also see these universities (under pressure from an increasingly competitive market for the bulk of undergrad education), start to set aside time-tested teaching languages and regretfully move to courseware that prepares people for these industry jobs. I feel like maybe my story matches reality at least as well as yours. It also explains why a simpleton like me might be able to learn these supposedly unapproachable languages like Forth, Lisp, F# and Haskell without appealing to me being a genius.
  - overgard 7y ago
    > > My point, which you seem to be avoiding, is that words are a lot less ambiguous than symbols. > Sorry, I don't accept this and you haven't demonstrated it except to say "well we can use an appeal to other things for words, but not for symbols." That really dosn't fly at all, for me. Nobody is a blank slate. When we learn things we associate with what we already know. The power of symbols is that they are inherently abstract and are not associated with what we previously knew, but when we're learning things that makes symbols harder to understand, not easier. "Sum" is a lot clearer than "Σ" if you're starting out. Quick, what do you think this means? {↑1 ⍵∨.∧3 4=+/,¯1 0 1∘.⊖¯1 0 1∘.⌽⊂⍵} (That's an actual program, btw, I didn't mash my keyboard). If you don't know any of those symbols, where would you even START? But wait, let me make it easier on you: life←{↑1 ⍵∨.∧3 4=+/,¯1 0 1∘.⊖¯1 0 1∘.⌽⊂⍵} Now what do you think it means? Does it give you a place to start, at least? (That's the APL version of the game of life) That version of the game of life is much simpler than if I were to write it in C#, which would be hundreds of lines longer. But is it easier? Of course not. It's absolutely baffling. > Imagine, if you please, a world where people in industry and on Hacker News repea an untrue mantra that one language is "simpler" from first principles, confusing familiarity with simplicity? Simple and easy are not the same things. Familiar IS easier, even if it's not simpler. I can imagine that world, but I also live in this world, where people have a current set of knowledge and it's easier to bridge the gap between what they don't know and what they do know by using what they already know.
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      > {↑1 ⍵∨.∧3 4=+/,¯1 0 1∘.⊖¯1 0 1∘.⌽⊂⍵} This is such a contrived argument. Firstly, I'd argue that it's only because of extensive exposure to a C#-ish language that you have a mental dictionary capable of fully describing IEnumerable. To most novices, both this and my prior example would be equally impermeable. > Now what do you think it means? Does it give you a place to start, at least? (That's the APL version of the game of life) I actually do know this program. It's part of Conway's Game of Life in APL. I know this not because I know APL, but because I copied part of the code into Google. Which is how most folks these days solve programming problems anyways. And once I know that, I can type "APL ↑ documentation" and tada, I found a wikipedia page! "Select the first (or last) A elements of B according to ×A" Feels roughly about the same amount of effort as trying to coerce some meaning out of obscure Python library errors, if I'm honest. > Simple and easy are not the same things. Thanks for that. Why are you so eager to take the eas yway out? > but I also live in this world, where people have a current set of knowledge and it's easier to bridge the gap between what they don't know and what they do know by using what they already know. A world where you're actively discouraging anyone from learning anything new by writing hundreds of words on websites about how they shouldn't do it because it's simpler and not easier, for what it's worth.

overgard 7y ago

My point, which you seem to be avoiding, is that words are a lot less ambiguous than symbols. EDIT for additional point: also, since your examples are haskell and C#, let me point out that reality seems to agree with me here, since C# is vastly more popular than haskell. If you're learning something, learning something with less ambiguity is usually easier. Considering that F# is similar(ish) to haskell and has the full power of the .NET platform and is still vastly less popular than C#, I think it's clear which option people think is easier. Easy may not be better, but that's a separate discussion.

cygx 7y ago
It's a trade-off, though: Compactness and visual variety can help readability. There's a reason why symbolic math notation won out, and why the most regular and/or verbal languages (eg Lisp, Cobol) haven't won over everyone's hearts and minds.
KirinDave 7y ago
> My point, which you seem to be avoiding, is that words are a lot less ambiguous than symbols. Sorry, I don't accept this and you haven't demonstrated it except to say "well we can use an appeal to other things for words, but not for symbols." That really dosn't fly at all, for me. > let me point out that reality seems to agree with me here, since C# is vastly more popular than haskell. If you're learning something, learning something with less ambiguity is usually easier. This isn't actually an argument. It's a hope. Besides, many of the folks in industry learned to program in other languages than the ones they use today in industry, but not languages that didn't exist at all. > Considering that F# is similar(ish) to haskell and has the full power of the .NET platform and is still vastly less popular than C#, Imagine, if you please, a world where people in industry and on Hacker News repea an untrue mantra that one language is "simpler" from first principles, confusing familiarity with simplicity? In such a world, educators would look to what the industry demands and feel that in good faith, they should give those languages some treatment in courses over time. We might also see these universities (under pressure from an increasingly competitive market for the bulk of undergrad education), start to set aside time-tested teaching languages and regretfully move to courseware that prepares people for these industry jobs. I feel like maybe my story matches reality at least as well as yours. It also explains why a simpleton like me might be able to learn these supposedly unapproachable languages like Forth, Lisp, F# and Haskell without appealing to me being a genius.
- overgard 7y ago
  > > My point, which you seem to be avoiding, is that words are a lot less ambiguous than symbols. > Sorry, I don't accept this and you haven't demonstrated it except to say "well we can use an appeal to other things for words, but not for symbols." That really dosn't fly at all, for me. Nobody is a blank slate. When we learn things we associate with what we already know. The power of symbols is that they are inherently abstract and are not associated with what we previously knew, but when we're learning things that makes symbols harder to understand, not easier. "Sum" is a lot clearer than "Σ" if you're starting out. Quick, what do you think this means? {↑1 ⍵∨.∧3 4=+/,¯1 0 1∘.⊖¯1 0 1∘.⌽⊂⍵} (That's an actual program, btw, I didn't mash my keyboard). If you don't know any of those symbols, where would you even START? But wait, let me make it easier on you: life←{↑1 ⍵∨.∧3 4=+/,¯1 0 1∘.⊖¯1 0 1∘.⌽⊂⍵} Now what do you think it means? Does it give you a place to start, at least? (That's the APL version of the game of life) That version of the game of life is much simpler than if I were to write it in C#, which would be hundreds of lines longer. But is it easier? Of course not. It's absolutely baffling. > Imagine, if you please, a world where people in industry and on Hacker News repea an untrue mantra that one language is "simpler" from first principles, confusing familiarity with simplicity? Simple and easy are not the same things. Familiar IS easier, even if it's not simpler. I can imagine that world, but I also live in this world, where people have a current set of knowledge and it's easier to bridge the gap between what they don't know and what they do know by using what they already know.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    > {↑1 ⍵∨.∧3 4=+/,¯1 0 1∘.⊖¯1 0 1∘.⌽⊂⍵} This is such a contrived argument. Firstly, I'd argue that it's only because of extensive exposure to a C#-ish language that you have a mental dictionary capable of fully describing IEnumerable. To most novices, both this and my prior example would be equally impermeable. > Now what do you think it means? Does it give you a place to start, at least? (That's the APL version of the game of life) I actually do know this program. It's part of Conway's Game of Life in APL. I know this not because I know APL, but because I copied part of the code into Google. Which is how most folks these days solve programming problems anyways. And once I know that, I can type "APL ↑ documentation" and tada, I found a wikipedia page! "Select the first (or last) A elements of B according to ×A" Feels roughly about the same amount of effort as trying to coerce some meaning out of obscure Python library errors, if I'm honest. > Simple and easy are not the same things. Thanks for that. Why are you so eager to take the eas yway out? > but I also live in this world, where people have a current set of knowledge and it's easier to bridge the gap between what they don't know and what they do know by using what they already know. A world where you're actively discouraging anyone from learning anything new by writing hundreds of words on websites about how they shouldn't do it because it's simpler and not easier, for what it's worth.