5 ms·

the refactored version of the example is much worse

rektide 4y ago
why? are you of a 'pointfree' opinion? what are your concerns? https://wiki.haskell.org/Pointfree https://wiki.haskell.org/Pointfree personally i detest pointfree syntax. having intermediate values makes it much easier to step through code with a debugger & see what is happening. and it gives the reader some name for what the thing is, which is incredibly useful context. the enablement of pointsfree styles is one of my main concerns about potential pipe operator syntaxes: the various syntaxes that have been raised often introduce implicit variables which are passed, and i greatly fear the loss of clarity pointsfree style brings. maybe there's something beyond the pointsfree vs not debate here that i'm missing, that makes you dislike the refactored example. personally i greatly enjoy the flatness, the step by step production of intermediate values, each of which can be clearly seen, and then assembled in a last final clear step. that is much more legible to me than one complex expression.
- greggman3 4y ago
  I agree that (1) named intermediate values are sometimes more readable ... though I have examples where it's very hard to come up with names and not sure it helped (2) debugging is easier. For (2) though, this IMO is a problem with the debugger. The debugger should allow stepping by statement/expression instead of only by line (or whatever it's currently doing). If the debugger stopped at each pipe and showed in values (2) would mostly be solved. I used a debugger that worked by statements instead of lines once 34 years ago. Sadly I haven't seen once since. It should be optional though as it's a tradeoff. Stepping through some code can get really tedious if there are lots of steps.
  - layer8 4y ago
    Intermediate variables also have the benefit to make not just the last value available in a debugger view, but also previous values (stored in separate variables). Of course, a debugger could remember the last few values you stepped through, but without being bound to named variables, presentation would be difficult.
  - 8note 4y ago
    It's hard to understand which statement the debugger has a break point set to when you can put many breakpoints on the same line I have tools that can do it, but I'll still have a better time splitting out a variable for it, especially since what I really want is a log of all the intermediate values, so I can replicate what it's doing on paper
- ducharmdev 4y ago
  I think it really depends on the language. In languages that more easily support repl-driven development (e.g. Clojure), I think this is less of an issue. If you have a handful of pure functions, you can quickly and easily execute them via the repl, so you get a lot of clarity as to what those intermediate values look like even if the functions are ultimately used in a more point-free style. But on the other hand, this would be a nightmare in C# (what I use in my day job). Sure, you can execute arbitrary expressions while debugging C#, but IMO you can't really achieve the same clarity. I'd rather see intermediate values like you suggest since it's easier while debugging, vs a bunch of nested function calls.
dns_snek 4y ago
Do you mind elaborating? I find the refactored version significantly easier to understand than the original. Readability is one of the top priorities for me and I find the original example too clever, in a bad way.
- arp242 4y ago
  I dislike variables that are used just once. Sometimes they're a "necessary evil", but rarely. For "envStr" it's defensible IMHO as it splits up some of the complexity, but I would rather just use a helper function, which has the same "splits complexity" effect and is re-usable. "styled" seems entirely pointless here.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    In this case I like that it gives you a hint about what's going on. "chalk.dim" sure doesn't.
  - dns_snek 4y ago
    Extracting `envStr` is definitely the highest impact change for me. I dislike temporary variables too when they don't represent a meaningful intermediary result, but in this case I see them as a lesser evil. I agree that `styled` is more about personal preference. This is why I'm happy to see the pipe syntax proposal, it avoids unnecessary temporary variables while simultaneously aiding readability.
    - arp242 4y ago
      > This is why I'm happy to see the pipe syntax proposal, it avoids unnecessary temporary variables while simultaneously aiding readability. The thing is I don't think it's all that much more readable. No matter which syntax you use, there's still the same number of "things" going on in a single statement. I do have to admit I never worked with a language that uses |>, so I'm sure that with increased familiarly with this it would become "more readable" to me, but one has to wonder: just how many calling syntaxes does one language have to support? More syntax also means more potential for confusion, more ways to abuse the language/feature, more "individual programming styles", more argueing over "should we write it like this or that?", more overhead in deciding how to write something, harder to implement the language and write tooling for it, and things like that. There is always a trade-off involved. The question to ask isn't "would this be helpful in some scenarios?" because the answer to that is always "yes" for practically any language feature. The question to ask "is this useful enough to warrant the downsides of extra syntax?" I'm not so sure that it is, as it doesn't really allow me to do anything new that I couldn't do before as far as I can see. It just allows me to make things that are already too complex a bit more readable (arguably).
rdez6173 4y ago
The refactored version is doing what pipes would do in a language that doesn't support pipes; it's reordering the statements into execution order rather than having to use a mental "stack" to grok the original version. Given that the OP stated that they like the pipe syntax, and the refactored version illustrates the hoops you'd have to jump through without it, I guess your comment is just a strange way to agree with the OP?

why? are you of a 'pointfree' opinion? what are your concerns? https://wiki.haskell.org/Pointfree https://wiki.haskell.org/Pointfree personally i detest pointfree syntax. having intermediate values makes it much easier to step through code with a debugger & see what is happening. and it gives the reader some name for what the thing is, which is incredibly useful context. the enablement of pointsfree styles is one of my main concerns about potential pipe operator syntaxes: the various syntaxes that have been raised often introduce implicit variables which are passed, and i greatly fear the loss of clarity pointsfree style brings. maybe there's something beyond the pointsfree vs not debate here that i'm missing, that makes you dislike the refactored example. personally i greatly enjoy the flatness, the step by step production of intermediate values, each of which can be clearly seen, and then assembled in a last final clear step. that is much more legible to me than one complex expression.

greggman3 4y ago
I agree that (1) named intermediate values are sometimes more readable ... though I have examples where it's very hard to come up with names and not sure it helped (2) debugging is easier. For (2) though, this IMO is a problem with the debugger. The debugger should allow stepping by statement/expression instead of only by line (or whatever it's currently doing). If the debugger stopped at each pipe and showed in values (2) would mostly be solved. I used a debugger that worked by statements instead of lines once 34 years ago. Sadly I haven't seen once since. It should be optional though as it's a tradeoff. Stepping through some code can get really tedious if there are lots of steps.
- layer8 4y ago
  Intermediate variables also have the benefit to make not just the last value available in a debugger view, but also previous values (stored in separate variables). Of course, a debugger could remember the last few values you stepped through, but without being bound to named variables, presentation would be difficult.
- 8note 4y ago
  It's hard to understand which statement the debugger has a break point set to when you can put many breakpoints on the same line I have tools that can do it, but I'll still have a better time splitting out a variable for it, especially since what I really want is a log of all the intermediate values, so I can replicate what it's doing on paper
ducharmdev 4y ago
I think it really depends on the language. In languages that more easily support repl-driven development (e.g. Clojure), I think this is less of an issue. If you have a handful of pure functions, you can quickly and easily execute them via the repl, so you get a lot of clarity as to what those intermediate values look like even if the functions are ultimately used in a more point-free style. But on the other hand, this would be a nightmare in C# (what I use in my day job). Sure, you can execute arbitrary expressions while debugging C#, but IMO you can't really achieve the same clarity. I'd rather see intermediate values like you suggest since it's easier while debugging, vs a bunch of nested function calls.

dns_snek 4y ago

Do you mind elaborating? I find the refactored version significantly easier to understand than the original. Readability is one of the top priorities for me and I find the original example too clever, in a bad way.

arp242 4y ago
I dislike variables that are used just once. Sometimes they're a "necessary evil", but rarely. For "envStr" it's defensible IMHO as it splits up some of the complexity, but I would rather just use a helper function, which has the same "splits complexity" effect and is re-usable. "styled" seems entirely pointless here.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  In this case I like that it gives you a hint about what's going on. "chalk.dim" sure doesn't.
- dns_snek 4y ago
  Extracting `envStr` is definitely the highest impact change for me. I dislike temporary variables too when they don't represent a meaningful intermediary result, but in this case I see them as a lesser evil. I agree that `styled` is more about personal preference. This is why I'm happy to see the pipe syntax proposal, it avoids unnecessary temporary variables while simultaneously aiding readability.
  - arp242 4y ago
    > This is why I'm happy to see the pipe syntax proposal, it avoids unnecessary temporary variables while simultaneously aiding readability. The thing is I don't think it's all that much more readable. No matter which syntax you use, there's still the same number of "things" going on in a single statement. I do have to admit I never worked with a language that uses |>, so I'm sure that with increased familiarly with this it would become "more readable" to me, but one has to wonder: just how many calling syntaxes does one language have to support? More syntax also means more potential for confusion, more ways to abuse the language/feature, more "individual programming styles", more argueing over "should we write it like this or that?", more overhead in deciding how to write something, harder to implement the language and write tooling for it, and things like that. There is always a trade-off involved. The question to ask isn't "would this be helpful in some scenarios?" because the answer to that is always "yes" for practically any language feature. The question to ask "is this useful enough to warrant the downsides of extra syntax?" I'm not so sure that it is, as it doesn't really allow me to do anything new that I couldn't do before as far as I can see. It just allows me to make things that are already too complex a bit more readable (arguably).

rdez6173 4y ago

The refactored version is doing what pipes would do in a language that doesn't support pipes; it's reordering the statements into execution order rather than having to use a mental "stack" to grok the original version. Given that the OP stated that they like the pipe syntax, and the refactored version illustrates the hoops you'd have to jump through without it, I guess your comment is just a strange way to agree with the OP?