On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Sang Noir <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm really tickled by the reaction to this comment on places like
> reddit. Especially how all the Haskell apologists are rushing to the
> defense of their language even though it's obvious that no Haskell
> programmer UNDERSTANDS the language, especially the type system.
>
>
You are mistaking "they don't understand the concept" with "they failed to
explain it in simple enough terms for you to understand, once in IRC".
A map is (or at least could be) a monad (a variant of the list monad)- but
not all monads are maps.
The only real way to learn monads is to use them- the same way the only real
way to learn macros is to use them ("they're just like C preprocessor
macros, kinda...").
Here is the problem I have with the snarky comment: it's encouraging people
to treat their languages as blub languages. Now, remember- a language being
a blub language isn't saying anything about the language itself, it's saying
something about the programmer's attitude to that language. The essence of
a blub language is that the blub language programmer looks at more powerful
languages and goes "I don't see a need for that, Blub does everything you
need it to do", even while dismissing less powerful languages for being less
powerful. It's not the language, it's the programmer. Remember that when I
say:
Clojure is a blub language for a lot of people on this list.
If you look at Haskell, and go "why the hell do I need that? Clojure does
everything I need", then, for you, Clojure is Blub.
Brian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
