3 ms·
Do you also consider v^.x hard to read when it is Pascal?
by rssoconnor 4y ago
Do you also consider v^.x hard to read when it is Pascal?
- HelloNurse 4y agoPascal 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 agoPoint 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 agoNo it wasn't hard in Pascal. Pascal had way fewer operators (^ and . being different ones) than the lens library.