31–40 of 78 posts
even for someone moderately interested in FP, this one goes above my head and the only take-away I can get from it is "maybe use ocaml instead of haskell"
In the 2010-2020 era, readers of Hacker News used to know how to read Haskell and had strong opinions (pro and con) of it. That era is now over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a lambda in a circle How often do people think you're a Half-Life fan instead?
or Aphex Twin
even for someone moderately interested in FP, this one goes above my head and the only take-away I can get from it is "maybe use ocaml instead of haskell"
In this case that’s the >>= from Maybe.Monad. As long as you satisfy the signature, it’s happy . do has nothing to do with Monads! Who lied to you? Could have been a stronger point by using a non-monadic >>=. I've been doing a lot of parsing lately and I find I don't need to reach all the way for monad (applicative is usually enough). But I guess that's what ApplicativeDo[1] is for. We’ve got to be explicit now which…
ApplicativeDo can be thought of as a compile-time transformation that turns sequential code into possibly parallel* code just by analyzing the way variables are used. Once I've had that realization I really appreciated it more. *: By "possibly parallel" I mean the blocks of code are known to be independent from each other. They could be actually executed in parallel if the Applicative instance does so.
[flagged]
This is in reference to a meme ( https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/stop-doing-math ) and made relevant by the first paragraph of the post. > Have you ever seen a Number grazing in the fields? Or a Functor chirping in the trees? No? That’s because they’re LIES. LIES told by the bourgeoisie to keep common folk down.
(And yes, I recognize the quoted sentence as being humorous and labeling the entire article as not entirely serious... my point is that it is not entirely unserious either. The idea has been kicking around seriously for a while.)