Live data from Hacker News

A primer on the cruel, tacit laws of type-level programming in Haskell

aymannadeem.com

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: A primer on the cruel, tacit laws of type-level programming in Haskell

#41
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard a stereotype that suggests only women are mean. Perhaps it's a cultural trope?

They are referencing the old idea that men handle disagreement with violence while women handle it by being mean to each other. Saying "only women at mean" is hyperbolic, but they likely are stereotypes.

[deleted]

Re: A primer on the cruel, tacit laws of type-level programming in Haskell

#42
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like a decent way to engage women in the content of the article to me. I think that is one of the aims, and why not? The article was written by a woman after all.

True, it just brings back bad memories from EU's "Science: It's a girls thing" campaign. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/jun/29/science...

That initiative is indeed cringeworthy and pandering. But this article feels more organic and genuine, to me. This article was written by a woman software engineer in her own time, and not commissioned by a boardroom full of bureaucrats, maybe that is why.

Re: A primer on the cruel, tacit laws of type-level programming in Haskell

#44
post #28
post #6

A discussion of the Haskell type system is not what I expected when clicking that link.

Be honest, what was your very first thought?

I thought it was going to be a piece in favour of showing kindness to people who themselves are mean.

(I never even considered "this is HN so it's probably tech-related". Don't know what that says about me or the site!)

Re: A primer on the cruel, tacit laws of type-level programming in Haskell

#46
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kinda nerdy and very clickbait-ish but sexist? Probably not, but who am I to judge. Old, white and male means I am not entitled to any opinion on such matters, by today's standards.

Old, white and male — we are probably both plenty entitled. But life is generally favorable to us, so we are often better off listening to those actually affected by this.

Is that to imply less privileged people should feel less obligated to listen or is that to imply more privileged people have less to contribute so they should default to listening? It seems highly unnecessary to devalue large categories of people based on the situations they were born into just to get across a point that listening to others is important.

Re: A primer on the cruel, tacit laws of type-level programming in Haskell

#47
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard a stereotype that suggests only women are mean. Perhaps it's a cultural trope?

They are referencing the old idea that men handle disagreement with violence while women handle it by being mean to each other. Saying "only women at mean" is hyperbolic, but they likely are stereotypes.

For what it's worth, I've never considered meanness to be limited to non-physical attacks. I'd venture to say a bully punching a kid is just as likely to get labeled mean as a bully that makes fun of a kid.

Re: A primer on the cruel, tacit laws of type-level programming in Haskell

#48
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have strictly no idea why OP is using women nor in the title or illustrations

It reinforces the stereotype that only women are mean. I would dislike a title reinforcing stereotypes about me: "Detox for Alcoholic East Europeans: Haskell type enforcement".

Never heard of a stereotype according to which only women are mean.

Re: A primer on the cruel, tacit laws of type-level programming in Haskell

#50
There seems to be a nigh-irresistible urge for people, when explaining type systems, to pick examples that are absolutely useless.

None of the types in the theme here make much sense. They are arbitrary. The contribution to writing a robust program is questionable and they don't do much to explain concepts.

May as well stick with classic "Goats are mammals; that should be enough to get you going with OOP" examples, at least they are less distracting.

I'm not a fan of this article.

Post reply on HN