On 02/07/2011 05:12 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>>     And then some people wonder why functional programming isn't more popular.
>>> How can it be, when it's full of trivial-sounding concepts which are, somehow,
>>> almost impossible to understand at the same time?
>
>> This is approximately like saying "The Turning machine makes no sense to
>> me. I have no idea what its purpose is. It seems trivial-sounding and
>> yet somehow impossible to understand. No wonder computers aren't more
>> popular!"
>
>    Monads and currying come up all the time when discussing haskell.
> Turing doesn't come up when using computers.

Currying, not so much. (Other than that it's something people often do, 
so they use the technical term for it. Rather like inheritance gets 
mentioned a lot in OO languages, even though it's just a short cut for 
duplicating code.)

Monads get mentioned quite a bit, and in fact there's an almost 
embarassing array of monad tutorials - most of them written by people 
who just figured out how it works, or by people who think that everyone 
understands category theory. There's general agreement that monads are 
over-hyped.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message