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.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @niftierideology @St_Rev
Once every couple months I get annoyed and say “I really ought to decode this bs to make sure it really is all nonsense like it sounds” and spend an hour googling and can’t find anything that makes it not sound like nonsense and give up again.
9 replies 1 retweet 35 likes -
your iq is too high to understand Applicative
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Dunno. Vast majority of my programming experience is in lisp, and I’m totally happy with functions of functions of function that return functions of functions or whatever.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I was a Clojure user before Haskell and Common Lisp before that.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @bitemyapp @Meaningness and
Came for the power, stayed for the rigor.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
It would certainly be easy to make a language cleaner than CL (a hippopotamus designed by a committee), and I’m quite willing to believe Haskell is that. (As also is Scheme.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @bitemyapp and
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).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @bitemyapp and
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.
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @bitemyapp and
It’s _maybe_ helpful conceptually for understanding things like currying I suppose. I learned a bit of category theory before being exposed to Haskell. Was actually a little weird at first because of some terminology/notational conflicts/ambiguities
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I guess? But that’s what the lambda calculus is for, not so much category theory. The lambda calculus used to be super esoteric, but now mainstream languages all sorta support it (even if they get some details wrong).
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @bitemyapp and
Yeah. Personally I prefer the category theory perspective a bit more than the lambda calculus one, though likely for non-programming reasons
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.