æʃliŋ, loaf of autismo @aescling@cat.family

@gayocats babie

​

@melaniemoo amogussy

@melaniemoo amogushole

@melaniemoo susshole

@manifold owo,

@melaniemoo susshole

@manifold tbh haskell has made a lot of sacrifices in the service of pragmatism (yes, really); if you really wanna see programming that looks like math, try looking up algol sometime lmao

@alyssa since when

@alyssa wait what

@manifold haskell was a language defined by consensus by computer scientists who wanted to package several ideas that were in vogue at the time into a single language

@manifold lol

@alyssa oh i just meant that (&.) (or whatever you would call it) is very much not idiomatic

though yeah that is a preferable definition to me

my favorite nonidiomatic haskell thing i’d do was to define g (&.) f = \x -> f (g x) (you need to do some fucking around with the operator to make this work right but i forget the details) so you could write long function compositions in execution order like a shell pipeline

@tindall@cybre.space there is always let as well, if you’d rather forward the local definition

@tindall@cybre.space haskell syntax is context dependency hell but gods is it fun to write with

@tindall@cybre.space back when i played with haskell i probably would have written that like

fizzbuzz :: Integer -> String
fizzbuzz x = case divisibleByMany x [3, 5] of
    [ ... ]
  where
    divisibleByMany n = filter (\y -> n `mod` y == 0)

and if i were to be really obnoxious, i’m pretty sure that lambda would be correctly expressed by ((== 0) . (mod n))

@tindall@cybre.space lovely

@monorail cool