Names in Haskell (Was: [Haskell-cafe] Comments from OCaml
HackerBr ian Hurt)
derek.a.elkins at gmail.com
Thu Jan 15 20:21:06 EST 2009
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 18:50 -0500, Steve Schafer wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:16:04 -0500 (EST), you wrote:
> >What I don't understand is why Monoid and Monad are objectionable, while
> >Hash, Vector, Boolean, and Integer are (presumably) not objectionable.
> >They all appear equally technical to me.
> I think the name issue is a red herring. The real issue is that, after
> being confronted by a concept with an unfamiliar name, it can be very
> difficult to figure out the nature of the concept. That is, it's not the
> name itself that's the problem, it's the fact that trying to understand
> what it means often leads you on an interminable
> Alice-in-Wonderland-esque journey that never seems to get anywhere.
I agree with interminable but certainly you go somewhere. A lot of
people like Haskell for this property.
"How do you know that a monoid action is isomorphic to a monoid
homomorphism into an endomorphism monoid?"
"Well, I was trying to append two lists in Haskell..."
For an actual interminable Alice-in-Wonderland-esque journey that never
seems to get anywhere, try to write C# programs that inter-operate with
More information about the Haskell-Cafe