← Back to context

Comment by antisemiotic

7 years ago

And then you actually try to write it in a functional language, and end up with something like:

cake = map (cool . bake 30 175) . splitIntoPans $ mix [ butter, sugar, walnuts ]

6 comments

antisemiotic

Reply
p33p  7 years ago

I think partial application and pipe operators make this so very intuitive though:

[butter, sugar, walnuts] |> mix() |> splitIntoPans(pans = 3) |> bake(time = 30, temp = 175) |> cool(time = 5)

  • strangenessak  7 years ago

    We can improve the syntax further

        [butter, sugar, walnuts]
    mix()
    splitIntoPans(pans = 3)
    bake(time = 30, temp = 175)
    cool(time = 5)

    Hmm, wait a second.....

    • pkilgore  7 years ago 

          [butter, sugar, walnuts]
    ^^^
     Somewhere wanted type CakeIngredients but missing record field "Flour"

      If imperative style programming came with type inference on the level of the Ocaml compiler sign me up. For now, though, I can spare a few cycles in exchange for correct programs.

    • antisemiotic  7 years ago

      Careful, somewhere along that line you might even come to a conclusion that Haskell is world's most advanced imperative language, with the reprogrammable semicolons and whatnot.

      1 reply →