3 ms·
> I would argue that someone should be able to understand what a function does by reading the name regardless of their understanding of the underlying language
by whateveracct 7y ago
> I would argue that someone should be able to understand what a function does by reading the name regardless of their understanding of the underlying language it is written in.
That's a bad litmus test imo and only encourages familiarity. If I used this to form my opinions, I would have peaced out the moment I saw >>= or traverse or foldMap
I am never going to believe everything should be immediately obvious to everyone. Sometimes, you have to buy in and learn some new abstractions instead of just favoring the ones that happened to be presented to you first.
- holtalanm 7y ago-> everything should be immediately obvious to everyone that....is not what I said. At all.
- whateveracct 7y ago> I would argue that someone should be able to understand what a function does by reading the name regardless of their understanding of the underlying language it is written in. You're saying that if someone doesn't know Haskell, they should be able to understand what functions in Haskell do by their name. Which disqualifies standard names like >>=, hoist, and more.