[Haskell-cafe] Comments from OCaml Hacker Brian Hurt
andrewcoppin at btinternet.com
Fri Jan 16 17:20:35 EST 2009
Anton van Straaten wrote:
> Andrew Coppin wrote:
>> Abstraction is a great thing to have. I'd just prefer it to not look
>> so intimidating;
> What makes it look intimidating?
> If the answer is "it looks intimidating because the documentation
> consists of nothing more than a mathematical term, without a
> definition, and a reference to a paper", then I agree with you, and it
> seems so does most everyone else.
> But if the intimidation factor is coming from preconceptions like
> "it's mathy, therefore it's scary"; or "it's an unfamiliar term,
> therefore it's scary", then I think that's something that the reader
> needs to work on, not the designers and documenters of Haskell.
I guess you're right.
A problem I see a lot of [and other people have mentioned this] is that
a lot of documentation presents highly abstracted things, and gives *no
hint* of why on earth these might possibly be useful for something.
(E.g., "coarbitrary". Wuh??) Perhaps fixing this *would* help make
Haskell more accessible. (The "other" problem of course is that what
documentation that does exist is scattered all over the place...)
I still think existential quantification is a step too far though. :-P
More information about the Haskell-Cafe