3 ms·
One problem is very generic tooling in Haskell. In many languages, you'll have a library that might provide a function like "iteratePokerGameStep." In the haske
by 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
One problem is very generic tooling in Haskell. In many languages, you'll have a library that might provide a function like "iteratePokerGameStep." In the haskell community, the author is more likely to realize that this could just be implemented via "BiApplicativeProfuctorCategory.map." So instead of writing a 6 line "iteratePokerGameStep" which gets its own name, you're more likely to see someone just call "map." Much simpler code in some ways, much less simple in others.
- KirinDave 7y ago"BiApplicativeProfuctorCategory". Please don't just make things up.
- dllthomas 7y agoIf it's not obvious why someSuperGenericThing is thisSpecificThingINeed in this case, I'll often give it an appropriate name and more specific type locally. It helps the next reader (which, of course, might be me) and can also help keep type errors better localized. It takes noticing, though, to be sure.
- johnday 7y agoThis is very good style.