<- Back
Comments (72)
- adamddev1The more of Haskell's ideas that bleed into mainstream languages, the happier the world will become. It is just so beautiful how these higher abstractions can become so useful and powerful for tying all kinds of things together.
- i2talicsI've long suspected that one of the things that makes monads notoriously difficult to explain to people outside of the Haskell ecosystem is that very few other languages even have a kind system that you are allowed to manipulate in code (and in some, like C++, it's so esoteric that you basically never see it). First explaining that you can even abstract over "type->type" kinded things gets you a lot of the way towards monads without actually describing monads.
- vatsachakOne thing I've noticed since I've become an engineer who gets to design the architecture:No matter what I do, eventually algebraic structures like semi-groups and monads along with categorical structure like lenses and traversals keep popping up.
- childintimeWhat is the article actually saying? It doesn't seem the author actually knows.It seems a tale about abstraction land, and how it never allows you to exit it again. How you pay taxes for every day spent in it, sold to you as a solution to a problem you didn't think you had.As any problem can be expressed in C, how would what the author did look like in C? KISS. Abstraction land clearly protects one from such vulgarities.
- cat-whispererI really like the concept of dependent types, all type systems that I use rust or haskell have a very limited set of dependent types, but I do like the things that it let's you do
- deterministicMy main problem with Haskell is that it never fully embraced dependent types. Instead, it kept adding one type system extension after another, making the language unnecessarily complicated.I used to be a big Haskell fan, until I discovered languages like Lean, Agda, and Idris 2 and realized how much cleaner and more coherent the whole thing could be with dependent types built in from the start.I highly recommend Haskell fans explore Lean/Agda/Idris. They make Haskell feel like a pile of spaghetti by comparison.
- cbsmithMissed opportunity to say "Kinds of kindness". ;-)
- vivzkestrel- 404 on posts? https://thunk.blog/posts/
- antonvs> These are the constructs we manipulate in our programs, things like 1, 2, True, "hello", etc… In functional programming contexts, they're also called "terms."This is not correct. Terms are syntactic expressions in a program. For example, 1+2 is a term, but it’s not a value. At runtime, it evaluates to 3. As such, some terms correspond directly to values - like 1 - but other terms represent computations that will be performed at runtime.tl;dr: terms are a syntactic concept, values are a runtime concept. Terms evaluate to values.
- draw_down[dead]