Conversation

Justin Lê
@mstk
I have a hard time buying this. 1. Haskell very often makes up new names for concepts instead of using math-based ones, if it helps intuition (Traversable, Foldable, Applicative, Lens...) This is *most* of Haskell 2. Sometimes there just *aren't* any better names than ie Functor
Quote Tweet
infinitesimal
@infinitesimal_p
·
Replying to @PLT_cheater
Haskell shoots itself in the foot by insisting on naming things after the corresponding algebraic concept instead of using names developers are likely to get
5
59
Justin Lê
@mstk
Overall the situation is that Haskell people usually *instist* on making up new names for concepts if there is a good descriptive name And sometimes (rarely) the math-inspired name is the best choice (least harmful, maybe) of all This is the opposite of the situation described.
2
5
Matt Parsons
@mattoflambda
there's a 95% chance that someone complaining about math terms in names is going to give a "better" name that is wildly incorrect, too "Functor? why not Iterable?" smdh
3
5
skelton jon
@whyevernotso
Haskell with Perl’s whimsy 🤔 class Eachy of where each ∷ (this → that) → of this → of that class Eachy of ⇒ Withy of where with ∷ of (this → that) → of this → of that; of ∷ it → of it class Withy of ⇒ Thenny of where then ∷ of this → (this → of that) → of that
1
10