3 ms·
I like FP as much as the next guy (who dabbles in it out of curiosity). But I can't get over thinking that the need to invoke function composition composition f
by marshray 13y ago
I like FP as much as the next guy (who dabbles in it out of curiosity). But I can't get over thinking that the need to invoke function composition composition for operations which are trivial in other languages suggests that somewhere we ended up trying to use the wrong tool for the job.
- bonobo 13y agoThis isn't the first time I got myself wondering "where do people derive these ideas from?" I need to read and re-read (and perhaps read once again) a post full of pictures every time someone try to explain me a new concept in Haskell. And the more it happens the more I'm convinced that this language is not an everyday tool. I don't want people to misinterpret me, I decided to learn Haskell and I don't regret it. But I often feel it's more like trying to cut vegetables with a katana: it's challenging, it's fun to practice, and surely it's a powerful tool, but even if I become a master at it I won't accomplish much alone, and I definetly won't want people trying this next to me. The thought of a bad programmer trying to look smart while fiddling in my Haskell code scares me to no end.
- marshray 13y agoLike "a bad programmer trying to look smart" is exactly how Haskell makes me feel!
- tome 13y ago(.).(.) and the term "function composition composition" are a really bad idea (except as fun maths puzzles). Just use \f g x y -> f (g x y) and be done with it.