3 ms·
Yeah, but if the monads were the only problem it would be ok (for me at least). But I'm asked to learn monads while also learning this weird syntax. I'm asked t
by tormeh 12y ago
Yeah, but if the monads were the only problem it would be ok (for me at least). But I'm asked to learn monads while also learning this weird syntax. I'm asked to learn something I don't understand in a syntax I don't understand. It's a bit too much. Like a math lecture in which, aside from the new concepts, the lecturer has decided to replace the traditional symbols (+,-, etc) with his new and equally arbitrary ones (¤, @). Except, of course, that Haskell's syntax is often more arbitrary than its competitors.
- mercurial 12y agoDo you have a few concrete examples, out of curiosity?
- tormeh 12y agoWell, I basically went "fuck this" after looking at Haskell for a while, but there's surfaced some links in the comments (thanks, akavel) and they provide some examples: >>=, >>, >, <$>, <$, <>, $, ., !!, !, <|>, :, ::, \, @, ~, -<, <-, =>, -> Taken together the syntax makes no effort whatsoever to be self-explanatory. I could handle it if it was the only programming language I would ever use, but in the polyglot world we live in and with my leaky bucket of a long-term memory this is not good enough.
- mercurial 12y agoI see what you mean. Most of these are custom operators which happen to be in the stdlib, but I wouldn't say :: or ->, for instance, should feel particularly mysterious with a bit of practice.
- codygman 12y agobind, ??, more than, fmap, ??, monoid, f $ x f(x), f . g . x == f(g(x)), x !! 1 == x[1], seq, ??... and \ is lambda.