3 ms·

And a single Java class can be more challenging than a large Haskell code base. So what?

batista 14y ago
So the first tends to happen far more often than the second. If anything, Java code is boring and boilerplate like, not difficult to comprehend. Haskell code on the other hand, not so.
- EvilTerran 14y ago
  I think we're arguing over subjectivities here -- comprehensibility is entirely dependent on the people involved as much as the language in question. If you're better at Java than Haskell, you'll find it easier to follow, and vice-versa; I know people in each category. And you can write clearly or obfuscate in either language; I've seen all the combinations. Personally, I tend to find Haskell easier to follow. I suspect that's mostly because I've used a lot more Haskell than Java of late, but it'll also be a matter of personal taste. As you say, Java can be very boilerplate-heavy -- some may find the redundancy makes it easier to follow, as it can remind you what's what "as you go"; others may feel like they're scrolling up and down hunting for meaningful code, and find all that boilerplate a distracting waste of space. I will admit that, on average, I'll have to spend a bit longer looking at a line of Haskell than a line of Java before I know exactly what it does -- but then again, you rarely need anywhere near as many lines of Haskell as Java to solve the same problem, so it feels like a net gain to me.
  - batista 14y ago
    >I think we're arguing over subjectivities here -- comprehensibility is entirely dependent on the people involved as much as the language in question. If you're better at Java than Haskell, you'll find it easier to follow, and vice-versa; I know people in each category. I maybe arguing over subjectivities, but subjectivities turn into objectivities with the tool of statistics. And I think that in general (statistically), people find Haskell more difficult than Java.

So the first tends to happen far more often than the second. If anything, Java code is boring and boilerplate like, not difficult to comprehend. Haskell code on the other hand, not so.

EvilTerran 14y ago
I think we're arguing over subjectivities here -- comprehensibility is entirely dependent on the people involved as much as the language in question. If you're better at Java than Haskell, you'll find it easier to follow, and vice-versa; I know people in each category. And you can write clearly or obfuscate in either language; I've seen all the combinations. Personally, I tend to find Haskell easier to follow. I suspect that's mostly because I've used a lot more Haskell than Java of late, but it'll also be a matter of personal taste. As you say, Java can be very boilerplate-heavy -- some may find the redundancy makes it easier to follow, as it can remind you what's what "as you go"; others may feel like they're scrolling up and down hunting for meaningful code, and find all that boilerplate a distracting waste of space. I will admit that, on average, I'll have to spend a bit longer looking at a line of Haskell than a line of Java before I know exactly what it does -- but then again, you rarely need anywhere near as many lines of Haskell as Java to solve the same problem, so it feels like a net gain to me.
- batista 14y ago
  >I think we're arguing over subjectivities here -- comprehensibility is entirely dependent on the people involved as much as the language in question. If you're better at Java than Haskell, you'll find it easier to follow, and vice-versa; I know people in each category. I maybe arguing over subjectivities, but subjectivities turn into objectivities with the tool of statistics. And I think that in general (statistically), people find Haskell more difficult than Java.