5 ms·

I generally don't particularly like giving punctuation meaning that, well, isn't punctuating. The bottleneck when writing code is almost never keypresses. I th

by jowiar 13y ago

I generally don't particularly like giving punctuation meaning that, well, isn't punctuating. The bottleneck when writing code is almost never keypresses. I think CoffeeScript gets it probably the most right of languages I've worked with, in that the choice of punctuation makes intuitive sense... "Hey! It's an Arrow. It goes from here to here". FWIW, I don't like the word "lambda" either... Naming things with one letter are generally a bad idea that we'd do better to divest ourselves of, but there is a bit of legacy to deal with. Either way, they make a field (and statistics is a major offender here, with p-values and t-tests and whatnot), terribly inaccessible.

gamegoblin 13y ago
The reasoning behind using '\' for lambda in Haskell was because it sort of looks like a lambda character ( λ vs \ ) if you squint hard enough.
- tormeh 13y ago
  That's just horrible. I don't know what more to say about it than that. How did anyone think this would be a good idea on balance?
  - gamegoblin 13y ago
    Mmm I suppose it's really just preference. I love that syntax. But I guess there's no arguing about taste.
    - tormeh 13y ago
      Well, it's typing-friendly but not (re)learning-friendly. I guess it depends how you weigh those concerns.
      - marcosdumay 13y ago
        It's also very reading friendly. I normally forgive languages being hard to learn if the bring enough utility.
  - sparkie 13y ago
    When you're writing Haskell in emacs (like you should be), you enable haskell-font-lock-symbols in haskell-mode, and it displays the lambda as it should be (plus a bunch of other symbol corrections for ::, ->, =>, (), ||, &&, etc.) Full list here: https://github.com/haskell/haskell-mode/blob/master/haskell-font-lock.el#L127 https://github.com/haskell/haskell-mode/blob/master/haskell-...
- jowiar 13y ago
  I wonder if that explains the Ballmer peak...
tormeh 13y ago
I cannot agree enough. Someone give me a call when a Haskell-like language with readable syntax appears. I really like the ideas behind Haskell, but the syntax is so unfriendly that I cannot be bothered to really start using it. Less special characters, please.
- sparkie 13y ago
  There really aren't that many special characters (certainly no requirement for non-ascii) in the core language - perhaps the sin is allowing almost unlimited user defined operators in code, which leads to monstrosities like ekmett's lens infix operators: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/lens-4.1.2/docs/Control-Lens-Operators.html http://hackage.haskell.org/package/lens-4.1.2/docs/Control-L... As a lisper, I prefer names and prefix operators - there's a few exceptions where infix operators add improvements to the language, but I dislike having user-defined operators (they make searching a pain, although Hayoo eases some of that).
  - wirrbel 13y ago
    I really like scheme & clojure and I think I have done a lot more scheme and clojure than haskell. (And even a alot more of Python). However, I think that Haskell by itself has a great syntax (with some legacy cruft, granted). What is really great is how Haskell enables you to write extremely succinct code by providing powerful abstractions and tools. The fact that you have a type annotation already gives enough meta information in the code that you often can omit a long name. The fact that Haskell functions tend to be short in lines gives you something that is closer to an equation than a command language. I don't know how to put this in words, but I'll try: Naming things well in programming is the most difficult task after mastering the very basics. I think this is because names are not fundamental for algorithms and programs but are like bookmarks for the programmer and their human brain. In C, a function with one-letter argument names is a nightmare, in Haskell, it actually improves readablity over a verbose version with whole-word names. And then, I have seen a lot of functions that were named very specific in terms of a problem the programmer tried to solve at the time, that however where quite generic, or could have been very generic (think of `sort_customers_by_name()` instead of a `sort_by()`. I share your dislike of extreme operator usage. It is a problem that whatever permutation of +-!@#! are used as operators in libraries for functionality that the user rarely needs. But the general approach of haskell for succinctness is a good one.
Perseids 13y ago
So what about the '*' in C or even better the '.' in so many object oriented language. > The bottleneck when writing code is almost never keypresses. No, it's readability and that often comes with terseness. Every line break because I have to spell out lambda or every refactoring that removes the function from its original context so I can avoid a line break is bad for readability. In that aspect the '\' in Haskell does great. Also in Haskell anonymous functions are so important that they definitely deserve their own special character to shorten many expressions. I only see this becoming a problem if it is used in excess, like in C++ and especially in C++11.
- jowiar 13y ago
  > So what about the '*' in C I don't like it... I don't what I'd do if starting from scratch, and there might not be better, but it definitely causes readability pain. > the '.' in so many object oriented language I have less of a problem with this, because there's some non-programming analog to be found (Section 1.1, Article 3.2, etc.). That said, I think, at some point, it's harmful to OOP in that it makes it hard to sort out properties and messages, and the roles of one or the other. I agree 100% on readability - the problem for me comes when words get mapped onto abbreviations and symbols that are almost entirely constructed and/or alien to most readers.

by jowiar 13y ago

gamegoblin 13y ago

The reasoning behind using '\' for lambda in Haskell was because it sort of looks like a lambda character ( λ vs \ ) if you squint hard enough.

tormeh 13y ago
That's just horrible. I don't know what more to say about it than that. How did anyone think this would be a good idea on balance?
- gamegoblin 13y ago
  Mmm I suppose it's really just preference. I love that syntax. But I guess there's no arguing about taste.
  - tormeh 13y ago
    Well, it's typing-friendly but not (re)learning-friendly. I guess it depends how you weigh those concerns.
    - marcosdumay 13y ago
      It's also very reading friendly. I normally forgive languages being hard to learn if the bring enough utility.
- sparkie 13y ago
  When you're writing Haskell in emacs (like you should be), you enable haskell-font-lock-symbols in haskell-mode, and it displays the lambda as it should be (plus a bunch of other symbol corrections for ::, ->, =>, (), ||, &&, etc.) Full list here: https://github.com/haskell/haskell-mode/blob/master/haskell-font-lock.el#L127 https://github.com/haskell/haskell-mode/blob/master/haskell-...
jowiar 13y ago
I wonder if that explains the Ballmer peak...

tormeh 13y ago

I cannot agree enough. Someone give me a call when a Haskell-like language with readable syntax appears. I really like the ideas behind Haskell, but the syntax is so unfriendly that I cannot be bothered to really start using it. Less special characters, please.

sparkie 13y ago
There really aren't that many special characters (certainly no requirement for non-ascii) in the core language - perhaps the sin is allowing almost unlimited user defined operators in code, which leads to monstrosities like ekmett's lens infix operators: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/lens-4.1.2/docs/Control-Lens-Operators.html http://hackage.haskell.org/package/lens-4.1.2/docs/Control-L... As a lisper, I prefer names and prefix operators - there's a few exceptions where infix operators add improvements to the language, but I dislike having user-defined operators (they make searching a pain, although Hayoo eases some of that).
- wirrbel 13y ago
  I really like scheme & clojure and I think I have done a lot more scheme and clojure than haskell. (And even a alot more of Python). However, I think that Haskell by itself has a great syntax (with some legacy cruft, granted). What is really great is how Haskell enables you to write extremely succinct code by providing powerful abstractions and tools. The fact that you have a type annotation already gives enough meta information in the code that you often can omit a long name. The fact that Haskell functions tend to be short in lines gives you something that is closer to an equation than a command language. I don't know how to put this in words, but I'll try: Naming things well in programming is the most difficult task after mastering the very basics. I think this is because names are not fundamental for algorithms and programs but are like bookmarks for the programmer and their human brain. In C, a function with one-letter argument names is a nightmare, in Haskell, it actually improves readablity over a verbose version with whole-word names. And then, I have seen a lot of functions that were named very specific in terms of a problem the programmer tried to solve at the time, that however where quite generic, or could have been very generic (think of `sort_customers_by_name()` instead of a `sort_by()`. I share your dislike of extreme operator usage. It is a problem that whatever permutation of +-!@#! are used as operators in libraries for functionality that the user rarely needs. But the general approach of haskell for succinctness is a good one.

Perseids 13y ago

So what about the '*' in C or even better the '.' in so many object oriented language. > The bottleneck when writing code is almost never keypresses. No, it's readability and that often comes with terseness. Every line break because I have to spell out lambda or every refactoring that removes the function from its original context so I can avoid a line break is bad for readability. In that aspect the '\' in Haskell does great. Also in Haskell anonymous functions are so important that they definitely deserve their own special character to shorten many expressions. I only see this becoming a problem if it is used in excess, like in C++ and especially in C++11.

jowiar 13y ago
> So what about the '*' in C I don't like it... I don't what I'd do if starting from scratch, and there might not be better, but it definitely causes readability pain. > the '.' in so many object oriented language I have less of a problem with this, because there's some non-programming analog to be found (Section 1.1, Article 3.2, etc.). That said, I think, at some point, it's harmful to OOP in that it makes it hard to sort out properties and messages, and the roles of one or the other. I agree 100% on readability - the problem for me comes when words get mapped onto abbreviations and symbols that are almost entirely constructed and/or alien to most readers.