Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Learn You a Haskell for Great Good

learnyouahaskell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: Learn You a Haskell for Great Good

#61

Post by nbouscal »

ccdan wrote: post #60
nbouscal wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The math notation that is used across all branches of mathematics is consistent and unambiguous (the notation of formal logic, naive set theory, etc). The only ambiguity typically comes from traversing different branches of the discipline, which is inevitable considering how many branches there are and how deep they go. Furthermore, mathematics is all about communication. The language of mathematics exists to cod…

>>No. The math notation that is used across all branches of mathematics is consistent and unambiguous (the notation of formal logic, naive set theory, etc). >>>Being able to say 'group' instead of 'set with an associative binary operation with identities' is essential >>>The reality is that you are not the target audience of their communication, and they are okay with that. You should be too. >>>The weirdest assertio…

You are simultaneously arguing that we should be using a natural language and that the language of mathematics is too ambiguous. I think you have not looked very closely at natural languages.

Re: Learn You a Haskell for Great Good

#62

Post by ccdan »

nbouscal wrote: post #61
ccdan wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>No. The math notation that is used across all branches of mathematics is consistent and unambiguous (the notation of formal logic, naive set theory, etc). >>>Being able to say 'group' instead of 'set with an associative binary operation with identities' is essential >>>The reality is that you are not the target audience of their communication, and they are okay with that. You should be too. >>>The weirdest assertio…

You are simultaneously arguing that we should be using a natural language and that the language of mathematics is too ambiguous. I think you have not looked very closely at natural languages.

A programming language can be created such that it resembles a natural language but it also avoids the ambiguities of that natural language. Anyway, the main idea is that FP languages are way too cryptic and ambiguous, they use too many symbols with multiple meanings which don't make any logical sense at a first glance. If you have to go to great lengths to explain the meaning of a simple symbol, then its use is wrong in a language that is claimed to be general purpose, clear, easy to read and so on. Either that, or the language is not general purpose and/or doesn't have those claimed qualities (clear, etc.) in a general sense.

Re: Learn You a Haskell for Great Good

#63

Post by nbouscal »

ccdan wrote: post #62
nbouscal wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are simultaneously arguing that we should be using a natural language and that the language of mathematics is too ambiguous. I think you have not looked very closely at natural languages.

A programming language can be created such that it resembles a natural language but it also avoids the ambiguities of that natural language. Anyway, the main idea is that FP languages are way too cryptic and ambiguous, they use too many symbols with multiple meanings which don't make any logical sense at a first glance. If you have to go to great lengths to explain the meaning of a simple symbol, then its use is wron…

Or, you simply have not learned enough yet to understand the language. Programming languages are not designed to be easy to pick up with no prior knowledge, they're designed to be powerful when used by professionals who actually know what they are doing.

If you're going to make the claim that functional languages use ambiguous symbols, you're going to need to back that up with some examples. I find it exceedingly hard to believe that there is any ambiguity in the operators of a statically and strongly typed language like Haskell.

Re: Learn You a Haskell for Great Good

#64

Post by tieTYT »

pnathan wrote: post #23
tieTYT wrote: post #3

This is an amazing book. I highly recommend it as the first Haskell book you read. After it, you can check out Real World Haskell. To elaborate on why you shouldn't read (at least the online version of) Real World Haskell first: It has a lot of important topics that it covers that LYAH does not cover (like how to use cabal their package manager). But, it's not as good of a tutorial on the language and functional prog…

Oddly, I find real world haskell more useful when I'm fussing with Haskell. /me shrug

Once you're past the, "what is functional programming?" stage, I'd probably agree with you. It's a much better reference and much more thorough.

Re: Learn You a Haskell for Great Good

#65

Post by ccdan »

nbouscal wrote: post #63
ccdan wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A programming language can be created such that it resembles a natural language but it also avoids the ambiguities of that natural language. Anyway, the main idea is that FP languages are way too cryptic and ambiguous, they use too many symbols with multiple meanings which don't make any logical sense at a first glance. If you have to go to great lengths to explain the meaning of a simple symbol, then its use is wron…

Or, you simply have not learned enough yet to understand the language. Programming languages are not designed to be easy to pick up with no prior knowledge, they're designed to be powerful when used by professionals who actually know what they are doing. If you're going to make the claim that functional languages use ambiguous symbols, you're going to need to back that up with some examples. I find it exceedingly har…

Or, maybe the language is very poorly designed. There are many programming languages. From Basic to LISP to C to Java to Haskell to ... Brainfuck. Some of them are used in the software industry and some are not. There are many claims about many languages: language x is good because [insert some random ramblings], language y is good because [...] However, no language is adopted by the industry solely based on claims (and btw. I have seen some utterly ridiculous claims made by those who try to promote Haskell.) Every once in a while, some companies try out new languages. Very few such languages get adopted and as you can see functional languages are almost completely absent from the industry. And there's a very good reason for it: they're simply not suitable for producing professional grade commercial software. If it had been otherwise, someone would have figured it out. The funny thing is that the start-ups that try to use them (usually founded by FP advocates themselves) also fail one after another. But some people never learn. Furthermore, many companies forbid the use of functional style or characteristics implemented in certain imperative languages. The code of good, proper lanaguages for general purpose software engineering, is almost self describing! What is unclear should be sorted out quite easily using the documentation.

Those "professionals who actually know what they are doing" don't seem to exist when it comes to functional languages. The evidence is the very fact there's not a single piece of important commercial software written in such a language. The question is rather: can such specialists exist? Because I'm afraid they can't exist because the functional approach is fundamentally wrong.

Examples of ambiguity in FP? What is the following line supposed to mean and what part of it suggest anything about that:

a b c

How is ~ an intuitive replacement for minus? How is (* 5 5) supposed to be as clear as 5 * 5 ?

ps. dynamic typing and type inference are two awfully bad things and either of them can lead to trouble in large programs

Re: Learn You a Haskell for Great Good

#66

Post by nbouscal »

ccdan wrote: post #65
nbouscal wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you simply have not learned enough yet to understand the language. Programming languages are not designed to be easy to pick up with no prior knowledge, they're designed to be powerful when used by professionals who actually know what they are doing. If you're going to make the claim that functional languages use ambiguous symbols, you're going to need to back that up with some examples. I find it exceedingly har…

Or, maybe the language is very poorly designed. There are many programming languages. From Basic to LISP to C to Java to Haskell to ... Brainfuck. Some of them are used in the software industry and some are not. There are many claims about many languages: language x is good because [insert some random ramblings], language y is good because [...] However, no language is adopted by the industry solely based on claims (…

Honestly, I'm chalking this up to Poe's Law at this point. Take care.

Re: Learn You a Haskell for Great Good

#67

Post by ccdan »

nbouscal wrote: post #66
ccdan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, maybe the language is very poorly designed. There are many programming languages. From Basic to LISP to C to Java to Haskell to ... Brainfuck. Some of them are used in the software industry and some are not. There are many claims about many languages: language x is good because [insert some random ramblings], language y is good because [...] However, no language is adopted by the industry solely based on claims (…

Honestly, I'm chalking this up to Poe's Law at this point. Take care.

LOL... that's all you had to reply? Typical of FP advocates..
Post reply on HN