4 ms·

Brevity: class Monad m where (>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b Now, I am comfortable with upper case for type and lower case for instance. But m is an i

Brevity: class Monad m where (>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b Now, I am comfortable with upper case for type and lower case for instance. But m is an instance of a function, not a variable. But m, a, and b all look like variables. You are already hammering me with the brevity here. Maybe put the functions in a serif font, and variables in a sans-serif? Or use different colors? Other languages seem to be more helpful with the visual cues. Solving problems in SQL is a blast, so it seems like Haskell should be an easy lift, but the brevity of the syntax has sent me packing for years.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Now, I am comfortable with upper case for type and lower case for instance. Monad is a typeclass, not a type. m is a variable, whose value is a type constructor. > But m is an instance of a function, not a variable. On the type level, m is a variable representing a type constructor; a concrete value it might have is List. It is an instance of a typeclass, not a function. > But m, a, and b all look like variables. m, a, and b are all type-level variables; the value of m is a type constructor (which is essentially a type-level function), while the values of a and b are types.
- smitty1e 5y ago
  My point is that keeping all that straight at the single letter level is brutal. If it were a physical building, Haskell would be brutalist.
- bmn__ 5y ago
  > m, a, and b are all type-level variables; the value of m is a type constructor (which is essentially a type-level function), while the values of a and b are types. Let's try to apply that knowledge, and use my tribe's creed that "similar things should look similar, and different things should look different": -- α, β types -- m type constructor (>>=) :: m α -> (α -> m β) -> m β -- a, b types -- 𝘮 type constructor (>>=) :: 𝘮 a -> (a -> 𝘮 b) -> 𝘮 b I think that's much better. GP's complaint was correct, writing different concepts with the same notation is confusing.
  - smitty1e 5y ago
    May good fortune land all over you.
  - loopz 5y ago
    There's alot of unspoken assumptions, like what m usually means. The brevity is supposed to make higher concepts expressible however. Monad m is just a basic building block. It's hard to find best intro material. The above could scare away someone else, even Haskellers. Maybe intro on how to read examples, explanations etc. could aide?

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Now, I am comfortable with upper case for type and lower case for instance. Monad is a typeclass, not a type. m is a variable, whose value is a type constructor. > But m is an instance of a function, not a variable. On the type level, m is a variable representing a type constructor; a concrete value it might have is List. It is an instance of a typeclass, not a function. > But m, a, and b all look like variables. m, a, and b are all type-level variables; the value of m is a type constructor (which is essentially a type-level function), while the values of a and b are types.

smitty1e 5y ago
My point is that keeping all that straight at the single letter level is brutal. If it were a physical building, Haskell would be brutalist.
bmn__ 5y ago
> m, a, and b are all type-level variables; the value of m is a type constructor (which is essentially a type-level function), while the values of a and b are types. Let's try to apply that knowledge, and use my tribe's creed that "similar things should look similar, and different things should look different": -- α, β types -- m type constructor (>>=) :: m α -> (α -> m β) -> m β -- a, b types -- 𝘮 type constructor (>>=) :: 𝘮 a -> (a -> 𝘮 b) -> 𝘮 b I think that's much better. GP's complaint was correct, writing different concepts with the same notation is confusing.
- smitty1e 5y ago
  May good fortune land all over you.
- loopz 5y ago
  There's alot of unspoken assumptions, like what m usually means. The brevity is supposed to make higher concepts expressible however. Monad m is just a basic building block. It's hard to find best intro material. The above could scare away someone else, even Haskellers. Maybe intro on how to read examples, explanations etc. could aide?