5 ms·

| begins a pattern match. ++ is list concatenation. :: means "thing-on-the-left is of type thing-on-the-right". That's all standard Haskell syntax. Egison seem

| begins a pattern match. ++ is list concatenation. :: means "thing-on-the-left is of type thing-on-the-right". That's all standard Haskell syntax. Egison seems to introduce some kind of advanced pattern-matching syntax with $ and #. I can't figure out what it is, or how it works; but I imagine it's quite simple once you actually know what it means.

tromp 4y ago
Interpreting :: as a typing judgement makes no sense here. What does make sense is interpreting :: as a list "cons", i.e. as : in Haskell.
kristopolous 4y ago
> I imagine it's quite simple once you actually know what it means. The first part isn't notable. Olympian athletes, for example, do the most baffling of intricate movements in grace and simplicity. Instead it's the amount of effort and context to get to the understanding that's at play. Maybe this syntax is intuitive for a mathematician, formal logician or some other specialist, but as just a mere every day programmer, it looks like nothing I'm familiar with. This is fine. Just let's not pretend that it's low effort to get onboard
- kragen 4y ago
  it's probably low effort for a 'mere every day' haskell programmer; it's just a question of what you're familiar with, not actually deep math (minor correction, as tromp points out, :: is evidently list construction, as in ocaml or haskell, not a type annotation) you asked what `matchAll primes as list integer with` meant ('what is the second line, a comment?') but apparently the person who answered you didn't understand that you didn't understand. it means 'evaluate the expression `primes`, which should have the type `list integer`, and then attempt to match the value resulting from that evaluation against each of the following expressions in order' deep math isn't simple to do even when you know what it means; it isn't just a matter of learning what all the symbols mean. this is just a matter of learning what all the symbols mean, like reading english instead of chinese. so to me your complaint reads like someone saying (in chinese) 'just a mere every day reader of novels, it looks like nothing I'm familiar with' because some text is written in english however, the situation is not quite so symmetric as with chinese and english. with a good notation, cramming lots of symbols onto a line is a really good lever to empower your reasoning ability. consider trying to explain how to play the seventeenth measure of pachelbel's canon in words. or writing assembly instead of c, even though they're both at pretty much the same level of abstraction pattern-matching really significantly improves the clarity of certain kinds of code, and you're missing out if you don't know what that's like i'm guessing that #() (the only weird part) is analogous to ${} in `-strings in javascript or #{} in ""-strings in ruby: it embeds an expression to be evaluated in a context where you wouldn't normally expect expression evaluation, in this case a pattern for pattern-matching (disclaimer, i don't actually know haskell, though i've implemented my own programming language featuring pattern-matching)
  - kristopolous 4y ago
    Thanks. As a correction, the comment you are directly replying to is the only one that I personally made. I just happened to agree with the sympathies of the first person and was trying to rephrase things in a more productive and positive manner. I appreciate the response not only for myself but for others who may be reading it as well. Thank you for taking the time.
    - kragen 4y ago
      i appreciate both the correction and the appreciation
  - imtringued 4y ago
    >or writing assembly instead of c, even though they're both at pretty much the same level of abstraction They aren't.
- pasquinelli 4y ago
  it must be simple because this code is, i presume, runnable.
  - kristopolous 4y ago
    That's now how simple works. Malborge's "Hello World" is a single line! (=<`#9]~6ZY327Uv4-QsqpMn&+Ij"'E%e{Ab~w=_:]Kw%o44Uqp0/Q?xNvL:`H%c#DD2^WV>gY;dts76qKJImZkj Look at how compact that is! Must be simple! You can't claim simplicity by using character or line count.
    - kragen 4y ago
      there are an awful lot of separate entities in that line
- crabbone 4y ago
  Nah, this mess isn't intuitive to anyone. There also isn't anything like an agreed upon mathematical or logical notation. Everything in this field beyond the basics of algebra / set theory is awful one-off NIH languages with awful / inconsistent grammar that nobody beside the "inventor" can understand, while the inventor has perhaps a 50/50 chance of understanding their own writing. The lack of requirement of mechanically verifiable proofs and adherence to common standards of expression of mathematical concepts is a huge drawback of what happens in this area of academia. People who come up with languages like Haskell (which this one certainly is) are people who want the absurdity of languages created w/o system or any general design to spill over into the programming land. Solely based on the fact that they've been exposed to this cuneiform during their apprenticeship and learned to associate it with the actually valuable stuff it's meant to convey.
lelanthran 4y ago
> That's all standard Haskell syntax It's the reason Haskell has remained a niche language. > I can't figure out what it is, or how it works; but I imagine it's quite simple once you actually know what it means. You can't figure it out but you're sure it must be simple? Newsflash: if you, a 1 in a 500 programmer who knows Haskell syntax cannot figure it out just by context, it's nowhere near simple. Simple is when 9 out of 10 programmers understand the thing.
- lgas 4y ago
  You're confusing simple and easy.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    For the rare occasion when the author doesn't mean easy when they say simple, they should probably clarify that they mean non complex and difficult.
    - kragen 4y ago
      words have different meanings; the root sense of 'simple' is 'one-fold', that is, only having one layer rather than two or four, and that sense is still present in phrases like the spanish hoja simple, meaning 'one-ply' (toilet paper, for example), but it's had multiple meanings for thousands of years including 'mentally disabled', 'honest', 'harmless', 'pure', 'unadorned', and, as you point out, 'easy' it's true that using a word with multiple meanings gives rise to ambiguity, and avoiding that by choosing a different word is desirable unfortunately there isn't a better term for 'simple' in the sense of 'not possessed of much detail' or 'composed of very few parts'; saying 'non complex' doesn't really help because 'complex' is often used to mean 'difficult' for the same reason 'simple' is often used to mean 'easy' except in hucksters' advertising brochures, i don't agree with your implicit assertion that all the polysemic complexity of 'simple' is merely historical, leaving only 'easy' as a live meaning; i think all the meanings i listed above except for 'harmless' have some currency today, even merely in english https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/simple#Adjective https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/simple#Adjective lists nine main meanings of which seven are current, though i admit i just added the 'easy' one myself; it wasn't listed previously (i think because of confusion induced by the polysemy of 'complicated')
crabbone 4y ago
"Quite simple" is the same thing as "left as an exercise for the reader", i.e. when someone couldn't be bothered to do things right / didn't know how to do things right, but made it work by shuffling and other kinds of rearrangements before it sorta worked. Maybe this language is simple to write if you know the rules. It won't be easy to read, ever, not even if this is the only language you have ever learned and practiced for decades.

tromp 4y ago

Interpreting :: as a typing judgement makes no sense here. What does make sense is interpreting :: as a list "cons", i.e. as : in Haskell.

kristopolous 4y ago

> I imagine it's quite simple once you actually know what it means. The first part isn't notable. Olympian athletes, for example, do the most baffling of intricate movements in grace and simplicity. Instead it's the amount of effort and context to get to the understanding that's at play. Maybe this syntax is intuitive for a mathematician, formal logician or some other specialist, but as just a mere every day programmer, it looks like nothing I'm familiar with. This is fine. Just let's not pretend that it's low effort to get onboard

kragen 4y ago
it's probably low effort for a 'mere every day' haskell programmer; it's just a question of what you're familiar with, not actually deep math (minor correction, as tromp points out, :: is evidently list construction, as in ocaml or haskell, not a type annotation) you asked what `matchAll primes as list integer with` meant ('what is the second line, a comment?') but apparently the person who answered you didn't understand that you didn't understand. it means 'evaluate the expression `primes`, which should have the type `list integer`, and then attempt to match the value resulting from that evaluation against each of the following expressions in order' deep math isn't simple to do even when you know what it means; it isn't just a matter of learning what all the symbols mean. this is just a matter of learning what all the symbols mean, like reading english instead of chinese. so to me your complaint reads like someone saying (in chinese) 'just a mere every day reader of novels, it looks like nothing I'm familiar with' because some text is written in english however, the situation is not quite so symmetric as with chinese and english. with a good notation, cramming lots of symbols onto a line is a really good lever to empower your reasoning ability. consider trying to explain how to play the seventeenth measure of pachelbel's canon in words. or writing assembly instead of c, even though they're both at pretty much the same level of abstraction pattern-matching really significantly improves the clarity of certain kinds of code, and you're missing out if you don't know what that's like i'm guessing that #() (the only weird part) is analogous to ${} in `-strings in javascript or #{} in ""-strings in ruby: it embeds an expression to be evaluated in a context where you wouldn't normally expect expression evaluation, in this case a pattern for pattern-matching (disclaimer, i don't actually know haskell, though i've implemented my own programming language featuring pattern-matching)
- kristopolous 4y ago
  Thanks. As a correction, the comment you are directly replying to is the only one that I personally made. I just happened to agree with the sympathies of the first person and was trying to rephrase things in a more productive and positive manner. I appreciate the response not only for myself but for others who may be reading it as well. Thank you for taking the time.
  - kragen 4y ago
    i appreciate both the correction and the appreciation
- imtringued 4y ago
  >or writing assembly instead of c, even though they're both at pretty much the same level of abstraction They aren't.
pasquinelli 4y ago
it must be simple because this code is, i presume, runnable.
- kristopolous 4y ago
  That's now how simple works. Malborge's "Hello World" is a single line! (=<`#9]~6ZY327Uv4-QsqpMn&+Ij"'E%e{Ab~w=_:]Kw%o44Uqp0/Q?xNvL:`H%c#DD2^WV>gY;dts76qKJImZkj Look at how compact that is! Must be simple! You can't claim simplicity by using character or line count.
  - kragen 4y ago
    there are an awful lot of separate entities in that line
crabbone 4y ago
Nah, this mess isn't intuitive to anyone. There also isn't anything like an agreed upon mathematical or logical notation. Everything in this field beyond the basics of algebra / set theory is awful one-off NIH languages with awful / inconsistent grammar that nobody beside the "inventor" can understand, while the inventor has perhaps a 50/50 chance of understanding their own writing. The lack of requirement of mechanically verifiable proofs and adherence to common standards of expression of mathematical concepts is a huge drawback of what happens in this area of academia. People who come up with languages like Haskell (which this one certainly is) are people who want the absurdity of languages created w/o system or any general design to spill over into the programming land. Solely based on the fact that they've been exposed to this cuneiform during their apprenticeship and learned to associate it with the actually valuable stuff it's meant to convey.

lelanthran 4y ago

> That's all standard Haskell syntax It's the reason Haskell has remained a niche language. > I can't figure out what it is, or how it works; but I imagine it's quite simple once you actually know what it means. You can't figure it out but you're sure it must be simple? Newsflash: if you, a 1 in a 500 programmer who knows Haskell syntax cannot figure it out just by context, it's nowhere near simple. Simple is when 9 out of 10 programmers understand the thing.

lgas 4y ago
You're confusing simple and easy.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  For the rare occasion when the author doesn't mean easy when they say simple, they should probably clarify that they mean non complex and difficult.
  - kragen 4y ago
    words have different meanings; the root sense of 'simple' is 'one-fold', that is, only having one layer rather than two or four, and that sense is still present in phrases like the spanish hoja simple, meaning 'one-ply' (toilet paper, for example), but it's had multiple meanings for thousands of years including 'mentally disabled', 'honest', 'harmless', 'pure', 'unadorned', and, as you point out, 'easy' it's true that using a word with multiple meanings gives rise to ambiguity, and avoiding that by choosing a different word is desirable unfortunately there isn't a better term for 'simple' in the sense of 'not possessed of much detail' or 'composed of very few parts'; saying 'non complex' doesn't really help because 'complex' is often used to mean 'difficult' for the same reason 'simple' is often used to mean 'easy' except in hucksters' advertising brochures, i don't agree with your implicit assertion that all the polysemic complexity of 'simple' is merely historical, leaving only 'easy' as a live meaning; i think all the meanings i listed above except for 'harmless' have some currency today, even merely in english https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/simple#Adjective https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/simple#Adjective lists nine main meanings of which seven are current, though i admit i just added the 'easy' one myself; it wasn't listed previously (i think because of confusion induced by the polysemy of 'complicated')

crabbone 4y ago

"Quite simple" is the same thing as "left as an exercise for the reader", i.e. when someone couldn't be bothered to do things right / didn't know how to do things right, but made it work by shuffling and other kinds of rearrangements before it sorta worked. Maybe this language is simple to write if you know the rules. It won't be easy to read, ever, not even if this is the only language you have ever learned and practiced for decades.