undefined | Better HN

0 pointsabecedarius2y ago0 comments

Better yet, compare

    f = glork_to_floob (crumb_to_glork c)

versus

    f = floob_of_glork (glork_of_crumb c)

and picture the first style inside a more complex function with more constructors/conversions.

0 comments

tome2y ago

Yes, even better example, thanks! In Haskell you get

    f = floob_of_glork . glork_of_crumb . crumb_of_zing

which is much better than

    f = glork_to_floob . crumb_to_glork . zing_to_crumb

nequo2y ago

Interesting. The pipe operator is more idiomatic in OCaml where this would be

  crumb_of_zing x |> glork_of_crumb |> floob_of_glork

versus

  zing_to_crumb x |> crumb_to_glork |> glork_to_floob

abecedariusOP2y ago

Yeah, fair. Forth especially really commits to that left-to-right order in its general style -- I like it when a language and its culture are conscious about readability in this way.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsabecedarius2y ago0 comments

Better yet, compare

    f = glork_to_floob (crumb_to_glork c)

versus

    f = floob_of_glork (glork_of_crumb c)

and picture the first style inside a more complex function with more constructors/conversions.

0 comments

tome2y ago

Yes, even better example, thanks! In Haskell you get

    f = floob_of_glork . glork_of_crumb . crumb_of_zing

which is much better than

    f = glork_to_floob . crumb_to_glork . zing_to_crumb

nequo2y ago

Interesting. The pipe operator is more idiomatic in OCaml where this would be

  crumb_of_zing x |> glork_of_crumb |> floob_of_glork

versus

  zing_to_crumb x |> crumb_to_glork |> glork_to_floob

abecedariusOP2y ago

Yeah, fair. Forth especially really commits to that left-to-right order in its general style -- I like it when a language and its culture are conscious about readability in this way.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse