Re: [Haskell-cafe] Wow Monads!

http://www.offcenterdesigns.net/wp-content/uploads/wp-checkout/images/i-foun... I think the problem with macros in general is that their semantics is defined purely in terms of code they generate. Not in terms of what that code actually does. As for me, I want to think about the things I need to achieve, not about the code to write. Az iPademről küldve 2017. ápr. 19. dátummal, 6:24 időpontban Richard A. O'Keefe írta:

...

On 19/04/2017, at 3:13 PM, Atrudyjane via Haskell-Cafe wrote:

I used to, mainly C/C++. There is no "I" in team... Our personalities must be similar : )

It's hidden, but there is definitely "a me" in "team". And then it's time for "T". (Obscure Lisp reference.)

Someone wrote:

...

...

...

I think Lisp-style macros are too powerful.

It's true that higher-order functions can do a lot of the things people used macros to do, and better.

However, having said "Lisp-style macros", Lisp is a tree with many branches. How about Scheme-style macros?

...

...

...

Problem with that is that empowering the programmer makes it harder to be 100% sure what a given piece of code does.

This is also true in Haskell. Show me a piece of code golf with Arrows and LemurCoSprockets and such all over the place and I haven't a clue. Total bewilderment. Heck, show me *undocumented* code in a language without macros, classes, or higher-order functions (Fortran 95? COBOL 85?) and I'll be just as baffled, if it is big enough. (I've been staring at some old numeric code recently. One page is quite big enough...)

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.