Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | gclaramunt's comments login

What's wrong with 'bind' ?

-----


What's being bound?

Perhaps "then" would work. JavaScript promises use it to good effect, and they're a monad.

-----


Smaller computations are being bound into a larger computation, where the monad provides the the code that is executed 'between the lines'.

(BTW, my own take on renaming a monad into something less scary is daisychain, or, slightly more to-the-point, chainable.)

-----


    (>>=) :: M a -> (a -> M b) -> M b
The `a` is bound in the second argument.

-----


Actually I don't see the post discussing anything, is just feels like "Unsafe is going away, the sky will fall!"

-----


FTR, I've learned Coq before Haskell

-----


If you consider Scala functional, I think it wins the popularity contest: used by startups and established companies (Linkedin, Twitter, Meetup, Verizon, Morgan Stanley, Autodesk, HuffPo, etc, etc...) and is not "we use it in a dark corner where nobody cares" and more like "betting the whole farm on it".

-----


I would "bet the whole farm" on Haskell before Scala.

That's not to make a dig at Scala. It's way better than Java. It's also really complicated, and the need for JVM compatibility is a big part of that. Then you have the compile speed issues, the problematic tool chain, and the fact that average Java programmers, given Scala, will create unmaintainable nightmares.

I'd use Scala over Haskell when I wanted JVM interoperability, or if I needed to train people up quickly. For a "bet the whole farm" play, existing programmer familiarity actually matters a bit less-- "the whole farm" is rarely bet on a one-month project-- and I'd pick Haskell first.

-----


Sure, I understand, for some orgs, betting on Haskell is the best choice. What I meant is that they're not using Scala in a small obscure project that nobody cares/know (as most early adoptions of languages are in big companies), they have a significant amount of code and their main business runs on it. (I'm not talking about the ideal case/what I would like, I'm talking about what I've observed in my bubble )

-----


> Then you have the compile speed issues, the problematic tool chain [...]

Did you ever use Haskell? Those issues are far worse in Haskell than in Scala.

You just hear more people complaining about Scala, because it is used, while Haskell projects are usually not developed and maintained anymore after the author finishes his PhD.

-----


> Did you ever use Haskell? Those issues are far worse in Haskell than in Scala.

I've used both, if anything Haskell is a little faster.

> You just hear more people complaining about Scala, because it is used, while Haskell projects are usually not developed and maintained anymore after the author finishes his PhD.

FUD. This is simply not true.

-----


Thank you for attacking that misconception. Haskell is, at this point, a very practical language, and becoming increasingly that way over time as it proves to have the best enforcement model for the functional style among the options out there. For good and bad, we're not in the 1990s anymore.

-----


That gave me a good chuckle.

-----


Does Scala have "compile speed issues" compared to Haskell? That's probably my biggest pain point using Haskell day-to-day.

-----


No. Scala neither needs to compile dependencies, nor does it need to recompile everything on a change.

The first compile might take a bit, but after that all changes are usually incrementally compiled in less than a second.

-----


That applies to all languages with useful list operations :) (I don't think dynamic has any relation)

-----


I think is obvious that Wolfram won't use anything that he can't take full credit...

-----


yeah, and the answer is "No"

-----


it might be pop sci, but the explanation I heard long time ago is: creativity is boosted by beta brain waves, (associated with daydreaming) Physical activities that don't fully engage your brain (walking, exercising, taking a shower, etc..) increment beta waves. On the other hand, increased focus and alertness, is associated with alpha waves, coffee produces that effect thus reduces your creativity

-----


While Haskell itself doesn't bring too much new things, is has been a good vehicle to explore new concepts. Mind you, all ideas need to mature before having widespread use, so is not hard to think on most of the ideas "being around for 30 years"

Applicative functors seems an example of something "new" as the paper introducing it is form 2008.

-----


> is has been a good vehicle to explore new concepts

Which concepts exactly?

> Applicative functors seems an example of something "new"

Too small a thing to be fundamental, to require any degree of re-learning.

Of course there is a lot of new fancy syntax sugar and all that, but the nature of the lazy languages did not change a bit since Miranda. If you knew Miranda, you'll learn Haskell in no time, and 30 years in between them would not make it any harder.

-----


for me a new-ish thing dependent types (I have a small experience with Coq)

But yeah, since Turing and Church the fundamentals of computation hasn't changed. Nil novum sub sole

-----


Dependent types are making their way into more practical applications now, yes, but the concept itself is also not new at all, it stems from the Curry-Howard isomorphism, which is known for far more than 30 years.

So, back to the point: anyone who knew how to program 30 years ago would easily pick it up now, without any significant learning.

-----


I guess my point is if you learned to program 30 years ago using functional programming with dependent types and category theory, it must have been an awesome place to work/study, and I envy you. Which university it was?

-----


In the same vein I would love to see the people defending the talk arguing in favor of a Noam Chomsky presentation

-----


I would absolutely defend Noam Chomsky's right to give a talk on, e.g., context free grammars.

Strangely, neoreactionary and libertarian types aren't so aggressive at shutting down debate. It's almost as if they feel they can win in the marketplace of ideas.

-----


Meh, I'm pretty sure we won't hear from the same guys if the speaker were somebody else, but I can't prove it so I leave it here :)

-----


If it was technically interesting and met the same standards that saw the Urbit talk selected as one of dozens out of hundreds, bring it on.

Do you think classical liberals don't read "Syntactic Structures"?

-----


> Do you think classical liberals don't read "Syntactic Structures"?

Never doubted that

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: