[I drafted this response some time ago, but didn't send it, so apologies if I am re-covering old ground...] At 09:23 10/02/05 -0500, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
If you're trying to avoid obscurity, why advocate point-free style?
Some time ago, I asked an experienced Haskell programmer about the extent to which they used point-free style in day-to-day programming, and the response I got was to the effect that they use point-full style a fair amount. The ...er... point, I think, is that it is easier to reason equationally with point-free programs, even if the intended computation is often easier for mere mortals to see when named values are used. So point-free style helps when trying to apply program transformation techniques, and translation to make greater use of point-free idioms may be a useful precursor to transforming a program. Something I have noticed is that, as one gets more used to using higher order functions, it is often more elegant to express a computation by composition of functions, but in so doing one has to discard preconceived notions of what makes an efficient program. I think it comes down to this: learn to be comfortable with both styles, and be prepared to use the one that best expressed the intended solution (and is easiest to understand) in any given context. #g -- At 09:23 10/02/05 -0500, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
If you're trying to avoid obscurity, why advocate point-free style? I ask this question to be deliberately provocative; I'm not trying to single you out in particular. So, to everybody: What's so great about point-free style?
Is it really clear or obvious what
map . (+)
means? Contrast this with
\n -> map (+n)
or
\n xs -> map (+n) xs
I submit that, while it is possible to develop a reading knowledge of point-free style, non-trivial use of point-free computations---compositions of functions with arity greater than 1, as above, compositions of sections of composition or application, arrow notation without the sugar, and so forth---will always be more difficult to read and understand than the direct version. I submit that this is true even if one is familiar with point-free programming and skilled in its use. Even something as simple as eta-reduction (as in the second and third functions above) can seriously obscure the meaning of program code by concealing the natural arity of a function.
-Jan-Willem Maessen _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact