6 ms·
As a haskell programmer, all of that was easily readable.
by rrradical 1y ago
As a haskell programmer, all of that was easily readable.
- sgarland 1y agoAs a non-Haskell programmer, all of that was easily readable. Straightforward words for functions makes that pretty easy.
- RHSeeger 1y agoThere were a couple of places that took me a couple reads to figure out, like the fact that `(x:)` was "prepend". But overall, I followed the code pretty well. From the context of someone that wrote a small amount of Haskell a decade ago.
- StopDisinfo910 1y agoIt’s partial application of cons via the operator, admittedly a poor choice from Haskell, a language which likes operators a bit too much. I think eta-expansion makes the whole thing clearer: (\xs -> x:xs) but most Haskellers would disagree. The article also features examples of point-free style, another unfortunate trend for readability. As long as you use operators sparingly, don’t abuse partial application and prefer explicit lambdas to composition, Haskell is fairly readable. The issue is that approximately no Haskeller writes Haskell this way.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Skeime 1y agoI don't use Haskell nearly enough to call myself a Haskeller but I will still disagree. Yes, operator sections are yet another thing to learn but I find them very intuitive, and actually easier to read than the equivalent lambda expression because I don't have to match up the bound variable. (For example, (\x -> x ++ y) and (\y -> x ++ y) look pretty similar to me at first glance, but (++y) and (x++) are immediately distinguishable.) Of course, this is reliant on knowing the operators but that seems like a mostly orthogonal issue to me: You still need to know the operator in the lambda expression. That said, the niceness of sections gives people yet another reason to introduce operators for their stuff when arguably they already are too prevalent.
- sshine 1y agoIt’s not that those language features are hard to understand. They’re all syntactic and don’t bring a ton of theory with them. It’s just that the tower of understanding for basic programs is very tall, and the tendency to introduce abstraction essentially never ends. I spent ten years with Haskell as my go-to language and there are still things I don’t understand and haven’t explored. It’s not like that with Python, or Go, or even Rust.
- kqr 1y agoThe : operator is the linked list data constructor. It takes an element and a list and creates a new linked list by linking the element to the existing list. It does the opposite when used in a pattern match: separates out the first element in a linked list. It is also an operator, meaning it can be used with infix notation, as in (x : xs). Haskell has something called operator sections, where if one supplies only one of the arguments to an operator it will return a function expecting the other argument. In other words (x:) == \xs -> (x:xs) and (:xs) == \x -> (x:xs) This can be used as in this article, to create a function that prepends x to any list. Another common example is (1+) which increments any number it is given, or (:[]) which turns any value into a one-element list. It can also be used much more cleverly -- especially considering that any two-argument function can be turned into an operator with backticks -- but then (in my opinion) readability starts to suffer.
- CamperBob2 1y agoAs a C programmer, that's the worst FizzBuzz implementation ever. You're not supposed to special-case % 15, just bool m3 = !(i % 3); bool m5 = !(i % 5); if (m3) printf("Fizz"); if (m5) printf("Buzz"); if (m3 || m5) printf("\n"); You can turn in your visitor badge at the front desk, and they'll call you an Uber.
- chpatrick 1y agoThat's an extra system call for printing the newline.
- CamperBob2 1y agoWell, duh, yeah, if you call setbuf(stdio, NULL) first.
- CamperBob2 1y agoUh, setbuf(stdout, NULL) I'll call my own Uber, thanks
- vostok 1y agoI think this person wants a space between Fizz and Buzz.
- CamperBob2 1y agoExactly, which means the interviewer didn't even state the problem correctly. The train had already jumped the rails by the time the candidate started writing. Hopefully HR will agree that they deserve each other.
- coolcase 1y agoNice. C looks like a safe language with the casual using an int as a bool.
- 1y ago
- 90s_dev 1y agoI honestly just skimmed the code and assumed it probably does what I would guess it does. It seemed to make sense and be straightforward... assuming my guesses were right, I guess?