5 ms·

That's an overly broad and sensational title. The simplified example on the website certainly isn't representative of all Haskell programmers being liars. It's

That's an overly broad and sensational title. The simplified example on the website certainly isn't representative of all Haskell programmers being liars. It's unfortunate because the article about mis-implementations of the Sieve of Eratosthenes is decent. Edit: mods, thanks for changing the misleading title.

dang 11y ago
Fortunately there's a decent subtitle and we can just use that.
- LukeHoersten 11y ago
  Thanks a lot.
garrisonj 11y ago
I know. I just wanted a provocative title.
- coolsunglasses 11y ago
  It's annoying particularly because Haskellers are perfectly aware of the problems with the example, but have struggled on the mailing list to come up with something which: 1. Could make at least some sense to somebody that knows zero Haskell 2. Isn't too trivial 3. Isn't leaning too heavily on libraries 4. Is at least somewhat "real"/performant Your example doesn't address any of the constraints of the medium. If you can think of a better example for that part of the website, it would be welcomed on the mailing list. I've been watching people try to figure out something that isn't too weak in any of those dimensions for months and now you're going to post an article with a title calling them liars because you want more attention for your blog? What would satisfy you? Renaming the sieve function? What do we need to do to prevent people like you from writing an article like this again? Edit: There, I fixed it and it's merged https://github.com/haskell-infra/hl/pull/114 https://github.com/haskell-infra/hl/pull/114 We're calling it a filter instead of a sieve.
  - Veedrac 11y ago
    What's wrong with just quicksort? Even if not, you can simplify it to prime n = notElem 0 $ map (mod n) [2..n-1] primes n = filter prime [2..n] which at least doesn't pretend to be something it's not. It's also easier to optimize (take the root of `n` in `prime`).
    - coolsunglasses 11y ago
      >What's wrong with just quicksort? The quicksort you're thinking of isn't a real quicksort and would bring on the same criticism. >Even if not, you can simplify it to Nah. I just wanted to get rid of the word sieve, not create more surface area for bikeshedding.
      - Veedrac 11y ago
        > >What's wrong with just quicksort? > > The quicksort you're thinking of isn't a real quicksort and would bring on the same criticism. If you're saying that because it's not in-place, I'll point you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicksort#Space_complexity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicksort#Space_complexity If you're saying that for another reason, why? > Nah. I just wanted to get rid of the word sieve, not create more surface area for bikeshedding. I was pointing out something that fits your four points, which is what you asked for.
        coolsunglasses 11y ago
        The not-a-quicksort you're bringing up was discussed and dismissed (for good reasons) on the mailing list.
        Veedrac 11y ago
        Do you have a link?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]

dang 11y ago

Fortunately there's a decent subtitle and we can just use that.

LukeHoersten 11y ago
Thanks a lot.

garrisonj 11y ago

I know. I just wanted a provocative title.

coolsunglasses 11y ago
It's annoying particularly because Haskellers are perfectly aware of the problems with the example, but have struggled on the mailing list to come up with something which: 1. Could make at least some sense to somebody that knows zero Haskell 2. Isn't too trivial 3. Isn't leaning too heavily on libraries 4. Is at least somewhat "real"/performant Your example doesn't address any of the constraints of the medium. If you can think of a better example for that part of the website, it would be welcomed on the mailing list. I've been watching people try to figure out something that isn't too weak in any of those dimensions for months and now you're going to post an article with a title calling them liars because you want more attention for your blog? What would satisfy you? Renaming the sieve function? What do we need to do to prevent people like you from writing an article like this again? Edit: There, I fixed it and it's merged https://github.com/haskell-infra/hl/pull/114 https://github.com/haskell-infra/hl/pull/114 We're calling it a filter instead of a sieve.
- Veedrac 11y ago
  What's wrong with just quicksort? Even if not, you can simplify it to prime n = notElem 0 $ map (mod n) [2..n-1] primes n = filter prime [2..n] which at least doesn't pretend to be something it's not. It's also easier to optimize (take the root of `n` in `prime`).
  - coolsunglasses 11y ago
    >What's wrong with just quicksort? The quicksort you're thinking of isn't a real quicksort and would bring on the same criticism. >Even if not, you can simplify it to Nah. I just wanted to get rid of the word sieve, not create more surface area for bikeshedding.
    - Veedrac 11y ago
      > >What's wrong with just quicksort? > > The quicksort you're thinking of isn't a real quicksort and would bring on the same criticism. If you're saying that because it's not in-place, I'll point you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicksort#Space_complexity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicksort#Space_complexity If you're saying that for another reason, why? > Nah. I just wanted to get rid of the word sieve, not create more surface area for bikeshedding. I was pointing out something that fits your four points, which is what you asked for.
      - coolsunglasses 11y ago
        The not-a-quicksort you're bringing up was discussed and dismissed (for good reasons) on the mailing list.
        Veedrac 11y ago
        Do you have a link?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]