6 ms·

I have. Like many other concepts in Haskell, it takes a bit of time for intuition to kick in. For example you likely wouldn't understand Traversable or Applicat

by kccqzy 4y ago

I have. Like many other concepts in Haskell, it takes a bit of time for intuition to kick in. For example you likely wouldn't understand Traversable or Applicative when you first heard of it but it will become second nature in a few days. The only rule I would have is to ban all the operators and force everyone to use actual words for names. For example (^.) is not allowed but `view` is.

pmoriarty 4y ago
> The only rule I would have is to ban all the operators and force everyone to use actual words for names. For example (^.) is not allowed but `view` is. Yeah, this is what I view as a enormous weakness of Haskell compared to Lisp/Scheme, where in the latter descriptive naming is a community norm. It makes for much more readable code... especially if I've been away from the language for a while.
rssoconnor 4y ago
Do you also consider v^.x hard to read when it is Pascal?
- HelloNurse 4y ago
  Pascal has a much smaller number of much simpler operators than Haskell + fancy libraries, which puts a low ceiling on the incomprehensibility of Pascal expressions.
  - aranchelk 4y ago
    Point of clarification for readers who aren’t familiar with Haskell: Haskell doesn’t have operators in the classic sense, since they’re just an alternate syntax (infix) for regular functions; implemented in libraries. The Haskell ecosystem OTOH has a shitton of infix functions, as does Edward Kmett’s lens library. I don’t think there’s any reason to bother memorizing the ones that aren’t useful to you. You can always search them on Hoogle if you encounter one you don’t know. E.g. https://hoogle.haskell.org/?hoogle=%28%5E.%29&scope=set%3Astackage https://hoogle.haskell.org/?hoogle=%28%5E.%29&scope=set%3Ast... I use lenses frequently in a large application and have only ever used view, set, and over.
    - bmacho 4y ago
      > Haskell doesn’t have operators in the classic sense, since they’re just an alternate syntax (infix) for regular functions Actually in Haskell there is a concept of 'functions' and 'operators'. The former are made up symbols, while the latter are made up mostly alphanumeric characters. Also they parse differently.
- kccqzy 4y ago
  No it wasn't hard in Pascal. Pascal had way fewer operators (^ and . being different ones) than the lens library.
ParetoOptimal 4y ago
> The only rule I would have is to ban all the operators and force everyone to use actual words for names. For example (^.) is not allowed but `view` is. I sometimes find myself thinking the same, but then I remember "Notation as a tool of thought"[0] and become less sure. Also I remember some lens compositions being more awkwatd with words, though I can't recall an example. 0: https://www.jsoftware.com/papers/tot.htm https://www.jsoftware.com/papers/tot.htm
- trenchgun 4y ago
  But Haskell does not have the squiggly sumbols…
spopejoy 4y ago
We actually have this rule in our company style guide. We do allow '.=' and '.%' (MonadState ops) because they fit elegantly into 'do' contexts.

by kccqzy 4y ago

pmoriarty 4y ago

> The only rule I would have is to ban all the operators and force everyone to use actual words for names. For example (^.) is not allowed but `view` is. Yeah, this is what I view as a enormous weakness of Haskell compared to Lisp/Scheme, where in the latter descriptive naming is a community norm. It makes for much more readable code... especially if I've been away from the language for a while.

rssoconnor 4y ago

Do you also consider v^.x hard to read when it is Pascal?

HelloNurse 4y ago
Pascal has a much smaller number of much simpler operators than Haskell + fancy libraries, which puts a low ceiling on the incomprehensibility of Pascal expressions.
- aranchelk 4y ago
  Point of clarification for readers who aren’t familiar with Haskell: Haskell doesn’t have operators in the classic sense, since they’re just an alternate syntax (infix) for regular functions; implemented in libraries. The Haskell ecosystem OTOH has a shitton of infix functions, as does Edward Kmett’s lens library. I don’t think there’s any reason to bother memorizing the ones that aren’t useful to you. You can always search them on Hoogle if you encounter one you don’t know. E.g. https://hoogle.haskell.org/?hoogle=%28%5E.%29&scope=set%3Astackage https://hoogle.haskell.org/?hoogle=%28%5E.%29&scope=set%3Ast... I use lenses frequently in a large application and have only ever used view, set, and over.
  - bmacho 4y ago
    > Haskell doesn’t have operators in the classic sense, since they’re just an alternate syntax (infix) for regular functions Actually in Haskell there is a concept of 'functions' and 'operators'. The former are made up symbols, while the latter are made up mostly alphanumeric characters. Also they parse differently.
kccqzy 4y ago
No it wasn't hard in Pascal. Pascal had way fewer operators (^ and . being different ones) than the lens library.

ParetoOptimal 4y ago

> The only rule I would have is to ban all the operators and force everyone to use actual words for names. For example (^.) is not allowed but `view` is. I sometimes find myself thinking the same, but then I remember "Notation as a tool of thought"[0] and become less sure. Also I remember some lens compositions being more awkwatd with words, though I can't recall an example. 0: https://www.jsoftware.com/papers/tot.htm https://www.jsoftware.com/papers/tot.htm

trenchgun 4y ago
But Haskell does not have the squiggly sumbols…

spopejoy 4y ago

We actually have this rule in our company style guide. We do allow '.=' and '.%' (MonadState ops) because they fit elegantly into 'do' contexts.