4 ms·

It's not functional programming, it's functional languages that go bat shit crazy with the amount of symbols they use that'd make looking at heliographs a refre

It's not functional programming, it's functional languages that go bat shit crazy with the amount of symbols they use that'd make looking at heliographs a refreshing pass time.

Jtsummers 5y ago
Out of curiosity, what are the crazy amounts of symbols present in, say, Erlang, SML, Scheme, or Common Lisp?
- throwaway81523 5y ago
  We're talking about typed FP so only SML in your list really counts. So let's see: functors, polymorphism, higher-kinded types (does SML have those?), Hindley-Milner type inference, etc. Then for Haskell (the main topic of the linked article), bring in a bunch of unfamiliar algebra such as the notorious monoid on the category of endofunctors. It is actually worth understanding that. I liked this article (prerequisite: some exposure to Haskell): https://www.haskellforall.com/2012/08/the-category-design-pattern.html https://www.haskellforall.com/2012/08/the-category-design-pa... This is also good: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Category_theory https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Category_theory
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    > We're talking about typed FP so only SML in your list really counts. I like your sense of humor. Appeal to Wikipedia Fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming LISP certainly shows up in the discussion. It's even called the first functional programming language!
    - throwaway81523 5y ago
      There's not really an official definition of FP. There are some proposed ones that involve types and some that don't involve them. Mainly though, this is a thread about the linked article, which is about the tribulations that the author had learning Haskell. Most of those tribulations were with the type system and I think that matches most people's experience. You can't transplant it to Lisp.
- bigbillheck 5y ago
  Parentheses count as symbols.
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    Are there crazy amounts of them? Compared to mainstream programming languages?
  - theCodeStig 5y ago
    In a LISP, the parenthesis are structural syntax. Where other languages use curly braces, whitespace, square-brackets, and usually a combination thereof; LISP simply uses parenthesis.
    - lispm 5y ago
      In Lisp parentheses are used as a syntax for nested lists. Lisp programs then are written on top of that with a syntax, which is structural on top of lists. Most other languages don't use a primitive data structure for encoding programs (other than text).
- codr7 5y ago
  Common Lisp is about as functional as modern C++, it's a multi paradigm language by design.
- jhgb 5y ago
  Well, for example standard Common Lisp defines 978 symbols. ;) At least that's what (length (apropos-list "" "CL")) told me.
the_only_law 5y ago
Not only symbols, I’ve stayed away from Scala because half the libraries I’ve looked at seem to want to make their own little DSL the language.
- erik_seaberg 5y ago
  That’s the way we ought to be working. If you don’t write the DSL, you’ll have to macro-expand the DSL in your head and write a bunch of boilerplate which everyone will be forced to try to reread and maintain forever.
  - lmm 5y ago
    You can write a DSL using words rather than symbols, and IME that makes programming a lot easier - you give up very little density and in return you can discuss your code aloud, search for it, ...
epgui 5y ago
I think the word you're looking for is "hieroglyph".

It's not functional programming, it's functional languages that go bat shit crazy with the amount of symbols they use that'd make looking at heliographs a refreshing pass time.

Jtsummers 5y ago

Out of curiosity, what are the crazy amounts of symbols present in, say, Erlang, SML, Scheme, or Common Lisp?

throwaway81523 5y ago
We're talking about typed FP so only SML in your list really counts. So let's see: functors, polymorphism, higher-kinded types (does SML have those?), Hindley-Milner type inference, etc. Then for Haskell (the main topic of the linked article), bring in a bunch of unfamiliar algebra such as the notorious monoid on the category of endofunctors. It is actually worth understanding that. I liked this article (prerequisite: some exposure to Haskell): https://www.haskellforall.com/2012/08/the-category-design-pattern.html https://www.haskellforall.com/2012/08/the-category-design-pa... This is also good: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Category_theory https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Category_theory
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  > We're talking about typed FP so only SML in your list really counts. I like your sense of humor. Appeal to Wikipedia Fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming LISP certainly shows up in the discussion. It's even called the first functional programming language!
  - throwaway81523 5y ago
    There's not really an official definition of FP. There are some proposed ones that involve types and some that don't involve them. Mainly though, this is a thread about the linked article, which is about the tribulations that the author had learning Haskell. Most of those tribulations were with the type system and I think that matches most people's experience. You can't transplant it to Lisp.
bigbillheck 5y ago
Parentheses count as symbols.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  Are there crazy amounts of them? Compared to mainstream programming languages?
- theCodeStig 5y ago
  In a LISP, the parenthesis are structural syntax. Where other languages use curly braces, whitespace, square-brackets, and usually a combination thereof; LISP simply uses parenthesis.
  - lispm 5y ago
    In Lisp parentheses are used as a syntax for nested lists. Lisp programs then are written on top of that with a syntax, which is structural on top of lists. Most other languages don't use a primitive data structure for encoding programs (other than text).
codr7 5y ago
Common Lisp is about as functional as modern C++, it's a multi paradigm language by design.
jhgb 5y ago
Well, for example standard Common Lisp defines 978 symbols. ;) At least that's what (length (apropos-list "" "CL")) told me.

the_only_law 5y ago

Not only symbols, I’ve stayed away from Scala because half the libraries I’ve looked at seem to want to make their own little DSL the language.

erik_seaberg 5y ago
That’s the way we ought to be working. If you don’t write the DSL, you’ll have to macro-expand the DSL in your head and write a bunch of boilerplate which everyone will be forced to try to reread and maintain forever.
- lmm 5y ago
  You can write a DSL using words rather than symbols, and IME that makes programming a lot easier - you give up very little density and in return you can discuss your code aloud, search for it, ...

epgui 5y ago

I think the word you're looking for is "hieroglyph".