Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Scala

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 9:55

Listen brahs. I have a dirty anus that needs cleaning: Java. I learned Java as my first language in school and now that I learned Scheme and am learning Haskell, I figured I may as well not let that go to waste and learn Scala. Is it simple to go from Java to Scala? Or is the syntax strange in some places. Because I looked over some code snippets and it seemed decent.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:22

I decided to stop torturing myself and part with Haskell. Why I did that?1st I don't give a damn about its type system and Haskell was putting it in my throat.2nd I didn't learned anything new. Well beside bunch of tricks, and I wasn't looking for tricks.

Farewell Haskell, you're joining the company of languages that didn't taught me much about programming nor changed the way I'm thinking .As Alan Perlis once said: "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing". The rest of the crew consists of pascal, basic, delphi, php, c#, ocaml, python and sql.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:23

I can pinpoint the exact page in Real World Haskell where I became lost. I was reading along surprisingly well until page 156, upon introduction of newtype.

At that my point my smug grin became a panicked grimace. The next dozen pages were an insane downward spiral into the dark labyrinth of Haskell's type system. I had just barely kept data and class and friends straight in my mind. type I managed to ignore completely. newtype was the straw that broke the camel's back.

As a general rule, Haskell syntax is incredibly impenetrable. => vs. -> vs. <-? I have yet to reach the chapter dealing with >>=. The index tells me I can look forward to such wonders as >>? and ==> and <|>. Who in their right mind thought up the operator named .&.? The language looks like Japanese emoticons run amuck. If and when I reach the \(^.^)/ operator I'm calling it a day.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:24

>>39
The ``Good Enough'' school of thought is unscientific and ultimately destructive. It just encourages mediocrity. UNIX is a murderer.

Haskell's type system is still better than most of the shit out there.

Name: OP 2011-04-18 12:24

Not the point though. So Scala sucks?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:26

>>44
It's better than Java, but just stick to Scheme/Haskell.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:27

As with pretty much any given functional programming language, things are so unintuitive that, well, I can't even explain properly how BAD things are. I'm studying haskell for college and I must say, when I compare the things I can do with C (I can even use pointers well), Java (I solve problems with classes), Python (I solve problems in simpler ways than C or Java) and even Shell Scripts (and that's something!) with Haskell (I pretty much can't do a thing), I know something must have gone terribly wrong!

Name: >>45 2011-04-18 12:27

``Better'' like in ``Java is better than COBOL''

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:27

Haskell is a bit of a fiddly language, much more primitive than most I tend to work with no implementation of while or for loops. And also lacking the ability to use functions as variables (again, primitive language) means I can not easily implement one myself, you simply have to recall the local function from inside itself … It makes me feel … Like a caveman. Anyway. I’ve also got to pick up C# at some point … Super exciting no doubt … but i’m weeks behind.

Name: OP 2011-04-18 12:28

>>42
I might use Haskell as my main language but I agree with everything else. Honestly, you have to learn radically different languages to learn something. Seven Languages in Seven Weeks taught me that.
>>42
Once you know the operators though, as long as you know what you want, the type system is damn intuitive. But for some people, its not a right fit because they think of things as they program. And that's cool too. Just don't use java. Or you are a murderer

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:28

>>46
It's something I'm not used to, it must be bad!

Name: OP 2011-04-18 12:30

>>48
>>46
Its not primitive and you can use anonymous functions and assign them to variables. And use higher order functions. So I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. BUt if you don't like it, I honestly don't care. It has a large community of people that like it for a reason. And fuck C#

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:32

>>50
He used to JAVA, and Haskell is pretty much like JAVA (statically typed, set theory based). This means that Haskell isn't much better than JAVA for solving his problems.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:32

>>48
C# is a murderer of many anusi

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:33

>>51
Ignore troll posts, please.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:33

>>52
That's cute. Skim over the fact that its a pure functional language. The fact that its radically different from Java.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:35

>>51
But can you do (EVAL (SETQ X '`(EVAL (SETQ X ',X)))) in HASKELL?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:35

>>57-
Please ignore troll posts!!!

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:36

>>55
What profit in this "pure functional language" buzzword?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:36

>>56
Recursive anonymous functions? I wish I'd thought of that. Oh wait. I did. Expand that concept to include whole modules? Recursive modules? Oh that's right.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:37

>>58
10/10. Master trolling.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:37

>>58
Pure functional language -- a family of toy languages, useless for solving real world problems. Examples: unlambda, brainfuck.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:38

>>61
brainfuck
IHBT.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:38

>>61
Those are esoteric, not pure functional. 0/10. Go back to troll school

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:39

>>63
Ignore him.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:39

>>63
Haskell is esoteric and not pure functional (unsafe perform io and the likes).

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:40

>>65
Monad- IHBT

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:41

Nobody can explain in simple words why Haskell is better than LISP. This proves that haskell is another no-better useless "blub" language.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:41

>>65
You are a monad:
instance Monad Troll where
  (>>=) = yhbt
  return = ihbt

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:42

>>66
"monad" is buzzword for continuation-passing-style.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:42

>>67
Nobody says that. And it's Lisp, not LISP. IHBT.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:43

>>67
They're at the same level, brah. Nice try though.
>>69
Lol monads return side effects but okay. IHBT

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:44

>>70
It's Ihbt, not IHBT. And i'm not IHBT-fag.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:45

>>72
-fag
Back to the imageboards, please.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:47

>>73
whats wrong with imageboards?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 12:47

>>72
So many cool stories. This thread is a pit of trolls. Ignore and move on. Too many anuses murdering up in this goyim.

Name: VIPPER 2011-04-18 12:47

>>72
Aim for the anus.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 13:00

>>48
You mean
foldl1 (+) xs

is more primitive than

int acc;
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
  acc += xs[i];
}

?

replicateM_ 10 (putStrLn "you mena haskal?")

is more primitive than

for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++){
  printf("you mena haskal?");
}

?

mapM_ (print . (*2)) xs

is more primitive than

for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
  printf(xs[i] * 2);
}

?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 13:05

>>77
OMFG! Ignore the trolls and ignore the thread!

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 13:09

>>77
haskell

foldl1 (+) xs

lisp

fold + xs

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-18 13:11


Haskell

mapM_ (print . (*2)) xs

Lisp (DSL)

map (say 2?) xs
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -