Well, well... The results were unsurprising. Suffice it to say, most 
average programmers are not well-versed in predicate calculus. And yet, 
when I mentioned on the Haskell mailing list that maybe we should use 
less opaque names, my suggestion was greeted with derision. "Well 
*obviously* if you don't know what a coroutine is you can't be a 'real' 
programmer then" and similar comments.

Tell me, which of these feature names do you consider more meaningful?

   "Existential Quantification"
   "Type variable hiding"

I got shouted at for suggesting the latter (which describes what the 
feature *does*) because the former "is much clearer to understand and 
has a far more precise meaning".

(Excuse me? Calling it "existential quantification" doesn't even tell 
you that it's to do with data types! WTF?)

Apparently the Haskell guys are so immersed in advanced mathematics that 
they have a completely skewed view of what "normal programmers" actually 
know about. :-P



And then we get the elitist brigade out. "Well if people can't be 
bothered to learn category theory, they have no business daring to use 
our blessed Haskell in the first place. We don't need them." Personally 
I find this attitude sad.

It's true that Haskell is a language for people who think about what 
they're doing before they do it. If you're a "code grinder" - churning 
out mile after mile of crudely hacked-together VB (or whatever) - then 
Haskell has nothing to offer you. We really *don't* need these people. 
If you're only interested in writing as much code as possible, as fast 
as you can, you can keep VB. Haskell requires you to *think* before you 
type.

But on the other hand, there is *no reason* why you need to learn 
category theory just to write programs in Haskell. If you know category 
theory, great. But there is no reason to make it *mandatory*! There's no 
need for that.

Hell, does Oracle Corporation go "hey, this guy is trying to use our 
database product, but he doesn't even know about the relational algebra. 
We don't need him!" Um, no, I don't *think* so! Sure, if you're serious 
about using Oracle, you'll bother to make the effort to learn how to use 
it properly. But why should you have to have a thorough knowledge of 
relational algebra just to be able to understand the documentation? What 
the hell??

(It seems to be a sad psychological case of certain people wanted to 
keep Haskell "secret". Like only the Select Few are about to comprehend 
the opaque documentation and grok the true meaning behind it. 
Personally, I don't subscribe to such elitist ideas. I'd like to see the 
documentation improved to the point where normal people can use it!)

Post a reply to this message