Comments on: Is your keyboard jammed, or are you just writing Haskell? http://avdi.org/devblog/2009/01/30/haskell-operators/ "...the three great virtues of a programmer: laziness, impatience, and hubris." -- Larry Wall Thu, 09 Sep 2010 09:18:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: gwern http://avdi.org/devblog/2009/01/30/haskell-operators/comment-page-1/#comment-934 gwern Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:47:00 +0000 http://avdi.org/devblog/?p=64#comment-934 Or why not define matrices as a Num instance? Maybe they don't quite fit, but that can't be much worse than having to use +++. Or why not define matrices as a Num instance? Maybe they don't quite fit, but that can't be much worse than having to use +++.

]]> By: gwern http://avdi.org/devblog/2009/01/30/haskell-operators/comment-page-1/#comment-861 gwern Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:47:00 +0000 http://avdi.org/devblog/?p=64#comment-861 Or why not define matrices as a Num instance? Maybe they don't quite fit, but that can't be much worse than having to use +++. Or why not define matrices as a Num instance? Maybe they don't quite fit, but that can't be much worse than having to use +++.

]]> By: amenzix http://avdi.org/devblog/2009/01/30/haskell-operators/comment-page-1/#comment-670 amenzix Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:11:39 +0000 http://avdi.org/devblog/?p=64#comment-670 Why not use `matAdd` (notice the backquotes). That's what I don't understand, why do people need to use weird symbols instead of using the infix notations for binary functions? It's not that much additional typing (especially if you use shorter names for function), there's only 2 additional characters. The additional information you get is, however, exactly what the operator _does_. Think dot product for vectors, what's wrong with `dot`, or `cross` for crossProduct? Why not use `matAdd` (notice the backquotes). That's what I don't understand, why do people need to use weird symbols instead of using the infix notations for binary functions? It's not that much additional typing (especially if you use shorter names for function), there's only 2 additional characters. The additional information you get is, however, exactly what the operator _does_. Think dot product for vectors, what's wrong with `dot`, or `cross` for crossProduct?

]]> By: Leif Warner http://avdi.org/devblog/2009/01/30/haskell-operators/comment-page-1/#comment-231 Leif Warner Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:56:52 +0000 http://avdi.org/devblog/?p=64#comment-231 I defined a '+++' in my code -- for adding matrices. It looks 'plus-y'. + was already taken for numbers, ++ was already taken for lists, so I used three.<br>I figured the meaning was evident and the readibility was nicer than looking at:<br>a +++ b +++ c<br>vs.<br>matrixAdd (matrixAdd a b) c I defined a '+++' in my code — for adding matrices. It looks 'plus-y'. + was already taken for numbers, ++ was already taken for lists, so I used three.
I figured the meaning was evident and the readibility was nicer than looking at:
a +++ b +++ c
vs.
matrixAdd (matrixAdd a b) c

]]> By: JKF http://avdi.org/devblog/2009/01/30/haskell-operators/comment-page-1/#comment-226 JKF Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:58:22 +0000 http://avdi.org/devblog/?p=64#comment-226 Isn't the message of Twain's essay exactly the opposite? Perhaps it could be a criticism of Forth, but isn't the message that infix operators (verbs) aid readability? Isn't the message of Twain's essay exactly the opposite? Perhaps it could be a criticism of Forth, but isn't the message that infix operators (verbs) aid readability?

]]> By: dons http://avdi.org/devblog/2009/01/30/haskell-operators/comment-page-1/#comment-222 dons Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:30:59 +0000 http://avdi.org/devblog/?p=64#comment-222 xmonad itself, only defines a handful of new operators, as you can see in the docs, <a href="http://xmonad.org/xmonad-docs/xmonad/doc-index.html" rel="nofollow">http://xmonad.org/xmonad-docs/xmonad/doc-index....</a> Fun post! xmonad itself, only defines a handful of new operators, as you can see in the docs, http://xmonad.org/xmonad-docs/xmonad/doc-index…. Fun post!

]]> By: tom http://avdi.org/devblog/2009/01/30/haskell-operators/comment-page-1/#comment-221 tom Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:13:24 +0000 http://avdi.org/devblog/?p=64#comment-221 I totally and super-uber agree. Haskell is one of my favourite languages ATM, but all the operators kill me, not when writing, but when maintaining code. Perl & line-noise springs to mind.<br><br>The fact that they cannot be googled/yahood etc. is also very annoying, although hoogle helped me out most of the time there. I totally and super-uber agree. Haskell is one of my favourite languages ATM, but all the operators kill me, not when writing, but when maintaining code. Perl & line-noise springs to mind.

The fact that they cannot be googled/yahood etc. is also very annoying, although hoogle helped me out most of the time there.

]]> By: avdi http://avdi.org/devblog/2009/01/30/haskell-operators/comment-page-1/#comment-220 avdi Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:41:55 +0000 http://avdi.org/devblog/?p=64#comment-220 On that I'm afraid we must differ - I prefer an at least vaguely meaningful (and google-able!) name like "compose" to the completely opaque ">>>".<br><br>The "Gentle Introduction" is gentle like a kick to the back of the head. But you wind up a better programmer for it :-) On that I'm afraid we must differ – I prefer an at least vaguely meaningful (and google-able!) name like “compose” to the completely opaque “>>>”.

The “Gentle Introduction” is gentle like a kick to the back of the head. But you wind up a better programmer for it :-)

]]> By: Ricardo Herrmann http://avdi.org/devblog/2009/01/30/haskell-operators/comment-page-1/#comment-219 Ricardo Herrmann Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:34:16 +0000 http://avdi.org/devblog/?p=64#comment-219 I really wouldn't see any benefit calling ">>>", for instance, "compose" instead. A newbie would miss the semantics anyway. Having a weird operator name at least makes a new developer check the documentation first.<br><br>PS: Great thing that you mentioned the 'ironically-named "Gentle Introduction to Haskell"' ... I also had a hard time reading it as first introduction, mislead by its name ;-) I really wouldn't see any benefit calling “>>>”, for instance, “compose” instead. A newbie would miss the semantics anyway. Having a weird operator name at least makes a new developer check the documentation first.

PS: Great thing that you mentioned the 'ironically-named “Gentle Introduction to Haskell”' … I also had a hard time reading it as first introduction, mislead by its name ;-)

]]>