4 ms·

Generally this is of course good advice, but in Haskell it is common practice to use very short names (e.g. x, x', xs, ...) if the context is clear (which it us

Generally this is of course good advice, but in Haskell it is common practice to use very short names (e.g. x, x', xs, ...) if the context is clear (which it usually is due to small scope, clear function names, type signature, etc.). This makes code much more concise and readable (it also makes it look very "mathematical").

skrebbel 14y ago
> (it also makes it look very "mathematical") Has that ever been an advantage?
- psionski 14y ago
  For people that like math, sure, why not. When implementing mathematical concepts, if you squint at Haskell code you can see the original formulas, which should make it easier for people used to this way of thinking. EDIT: I'm not implying it's useful just for programming "math stuff", after all, everything can be reduced to a mathematical problem - including game engines[1], web application frameworks[2], etc. [1] http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~pls/thesis/munc-thesis.pdf http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~pls/thesis/munc-thesis.pdf [2] https://github.com/yesodweb/yesod https://github.com/yesodweb/yesod
  - vidarh 14y ago
    And it's probably one of the most significant things limiting adoption of Haskell.
    - spiffistan 14y ago
      Indeed.
    - egeozcan 14y ago
      Exactly. From my point of view, Haskell is the perfect language which unfortunately comes with the worst naming conventions. (I generally develop in C#, F# and JavaScript)
      - psionski 14y ago
        The naming conventions are fine, but they're very different from C#, F# or JS - it's basically the difference between reading English text and reading formulas (i.e. compositions of weird letters and symbols).
        psionski 14y ago
        I just want to add something - using Haskell's naming conventions in C# or JS is a crime against humanity. If your function is longer than 5-6 lines and wider than 10-15 characters `xs` or `<|>` are not good names. I think you could get away with it in F#, but it will look weird.

skrebbel 14y ago

> (it also makes it look very "mathematical") Has that ever been an advantage?

psionski 14y ago
For people that like math, sure, why not. When implementing mathematical concepts, if you squint at Haskell code you can see the original formulas, which should make it easier for people used to this way of thinking. EDIT: I'm not implying it's useful just for programming "math stuff", after all, everything can be reduced to a mathematical problem - including game engines[1], web application frameworks[2], etc. [1] http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~pls/thesis/munc-thesis.pdf http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~pls/thesis/munc-thesis.pdf [2] https://github.com/yesodweb/yesod https://github.com/yesodweb/yesod
- vidarh 14y ago
  And it's probably one of the most significant things limiting adoption of Haskell.
  - spiffistan 14y ago
    Indeed.
  - egeozcan 14y ago
    Exactly. From my point of view, Haskell is the perfect language which unfortunately comes with the worst naming conventions. (I generally develop in C#, F# and JavaScript)
    - psionski 14y ago
      The naming conventions are fine, but they're very different from C#, F# or JS - it's basically the difference between reading English text and reading formulas (i.e. compositions of weird letters and symbols).
      - psionski 14y ago
        I just want to add something - using Haskell's naming conventions in C# or JS is a crime against humanity. If your function is longer than 5-6 lines and wider than 10-15 characters `xs` or `<|>` are not good names. I think you could get away with it in F#, but it will look weird.