clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> All I understand is bollocks, but something tells me the concept 
> is probably so trivial that a handful of well-chosen words could explain 
> it all, if they just avoided the technical blurb and "Haskellisms".

  Most of the mathematical background in Haskell and purely functional
languages reminds me of the theory of electronics: The people in the
know seem to consider many of the topics trivial and self-evident, but
for some reason are usually unable to explain them in an understandable
manner.

  The difference is that in eletronics the concepts feel very complicated
when they try to explain them, while in Haskell they feel pretty trivial,
yet the real understanding of it always escapes the layman. For instance,
I still don't understand what currying *really* is about, and every time
I try to suggest "is like this?" the answer is "not really". It's like
some trivial-sounding but still ethereal concept that's impossible for
a mere mortal to grasp.

  And then they wonder why functional programming isn't mainstream.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message