3 ms·
Nice to see that people sometimes asking "what for" question. I think it is what could be called "Haskell syndrome" when people tend to write abstract things i
by dschiptsov 13y ago
Nice to see that people sometimes asking "what for" question.
I think it is what could be called "Haskell syndrome" when people tend to write abstract things in "very fancy way" without asking that simple question.
There are tons of blog posts like "look, I could write this abstraction in Haskell this way using this kind of monads!". Well, you can, very clever, the question is - what are the chances to encounter this abstraction in real-world problems? Isn't there a straightforward but less fancy solution?
Should I really have "all this fancy stuff" to process onClick events which can be done in 3 lines of plain ugly JS?)
- chongli 13y agoShould I really have "all this fancy stuff" to process onClick events which can be done in 3 lines of plain ugly JS?) "All this fancy stuff" is just an exploration of what's possible. The verbosity can (and will) be abstracted away via Clojure's excellent tools of abstraction (higher-order functions and macros). Your "3 lines of plain ugly JS" aren't going to scale because they rely on mutation. Mutation is deceptively quick and easy when you're just starting out. However, once your program grows large it turns into a sprawling mess of complexity.