Haskell is very simple. Everything is composed of Functads which are themselves a Tormund of Gurmoids, usually defined over the Devons. All you have to do is stick one Devon inside a Tormund and it yields Reverse Functads (Actually Functoids) you use to generate Unbound Gurmoids.
I’m also quite willing to believe that static typing with powerful type inference could win big (but I’ve never programmed in a statically typed language other than braindead algol derivatives, which suck, but that’s a different thing).
-
-
What I have not yet seen a coherent explanation for is what the category theory jargon buys you. I’ve done real category theory (real = for mathematicians, decades before computer scientists had heard of it), so I’m not dumb (at least not in that way) but I don’t get it.
-
Honestly, my sense is that you're overthinking this thing about CT. It's really not nonsense. I'll give a go at how I think about it:
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This point, right here (static typing with powerful type inference ) is 85% of what's going on.
-
That part I can totally believe, and in fact I’m intrigued enough by it that I’m tempted to learn Haskell to see what it’s like.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.