3 ms·

I meant it sincerely, not as a joke. > As many philosophers have pointed out, particulars are easier to point out than universals. The latter requires a lot of

by nequo 2y ago

I meant it sincerely, not as a joke. > As many philosophers have pointed out, particulars are easier to point out than universals. The latter requires a lot of thought. Fair enough, that’s a good point. You don’t have to use >>= and >> if you don’t want to though. Use the do notation instead and the code will look much more familiar. You also mention fmap; that’s `.map` in Rust, etc. in other languages. All I’m trying to say is, there are many parallels between Haskell and other languages at the level of particulars. The concepts behind >>= and >> are not unique to it anymore. So there is hope if you want to reconstruct the universal concepts in your mind from those particulars, especially if you use fitting abstractions like the do notation.

bowsamic 2y ago
> All I’m trying to say is, there are many parallels between Haskell and other languages at the level of particulars. Of course there are parallels, there must be for Haskell to be able to do what imperative languages can do. However that doesn't mean the abstractions are simple. "do notation" is another complicated generalisation and there's no way any Haskell programmer it going to be able to simply pretend that their do notation is a normal imperative language. You seem to be asserting that I'm claiming that Haskell simply can't do the things that imperative languages can do, and I'm not at all and I don't understand how you inferred that.
- nequo 2y ago
  > You seem to be asserting that I'm claiming that Haskell simply can't do the things that imperative languages can do No, that’s not my intention. I responded to your view that monads are hard to understand by saying that they show up in other languages too in non-trivial ways. I also don’t mean to say that Haskell is like imperative languages. Just that monads by themselves show up in imperative languages too, so they are not as esoteric as the operator names (>>=, >>) may make them seem. I appreciate that you followed up in good faith. The point of view that you expressed makes sense to me.

by nequo 2y ago

bowsamic 2y ago

> All I’m trying to say is, there are many parallels between Haskell and other languages at the level of particulars. Of course there are parallels, there must be for Haskell to be able to do what imperative languages can do. However that doesn't mean the abstractions are simple. "do notation" is another complicated generalisation and there's no way any Haskell programmer it going to be able to simply pretend that their do notation is a normal imperative language. You seem to be asserting that I'm claiming that Haskell simply can't do the things that imperative languages can do, and I'm not at all and I don't understand how you inferred that.

nequo 2y ago
> You seem to be asserting that I'm claiming that Haskell simply can't do the things that imperative languages can do No, that’s not my intention. I responded to your view that monads are hard to understand by saying that they show up in other languages too in non-trivial ways. I also don’t mean to say that Haskell is like imperative languages. Just that monads by themselves show up in imperative languages too, so they are not as esoteric as the operator names (>>=, >>) may make them seem. I appreciate that you followed up in good faith. The point of view that you expressed makes sense to me.