On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Michael Orlitzky <michael@orlitzky.com> wrote:

On 02/26/2016 12:41 PM, Rein Henrichs wrote:
> Pointfree is good for reasoning about *composition*. It can often be
> more readable than pointful code when the focus of the function is on
> composition of other functions. For example, take this function from
> Bird's /Pearls of Functional Algorithm Design/:
>
> boxes = map ungroup . ungroup . map cols . group . map group
>
> Compare the pointful version:
>
> boxes matrix = map ungroup (ungroup (map cols (group (map group matrix))))
>
> Readibility is subjective, but I think many people will agree that the
> pointfree version is easier to read.
>

Sure, but does anyone have any idea what that first version is supposed
to do? It would be much better to write it out:

On Haskell's readability, I am getting better at reading point-free and idiomatic Haskell with practice, and I now think that a short Haskell function with a meaningful type signature is much more readable that other languages I've used.

On using short variable names, that plus point free style can make a lot of expressions into one-liners, which I see as an advantage for comprehension on the whole, even if you need to learn what the variables mean. Using 'm' for a map, 'l' for a list, and other conventions helps.

Some styles make a program more readable when it is first encountered, but my own pet project is something I've worked with for a long time, allowing me to establish consistent and carefully thought-out naming schemes, not to mention I'm familiar with the concepts, so I find it easier to read my own code (say, written a long time ago) when it's concise (meaning point-free in many cases).

One could argue that a public project needs to put greater focus on readability to the uninitiated.

The Haskell hierarchical libraries are public, and their design seems, as far as I can tell, intended to trade off toward the person who has become expert in them rather than making everything obvious to the beginner. But maybe I'm wrong about that.