Hacker News Reader

Comment by lmm | Hacker News Reader

It was a random choice of big-name framework; I could say the same of Rails or Spring or anything.

Naming things is hard, and the same pattern is constantly rediscovered in different places. If anything I'd say Haskell's difficulties come from the other end: being too willing to respect the "original" name of a concept from an old mathematical paper rather than coming up with a branding that programmers will be more comfortable with.

View on HN

I get the point: we love to rename things, and Haskell is using the proper mathematical name. There must be a balance somewhere though.

The parent seems to agree with you, that Haskell is maybe too eager to keep to 'mathematical' names, but it almost sounds like you interpreted the parent the other way around?

Your comment reads almost equally well with two different interpretations. One a restatement of fact, and the other a rather rude response to a misunderstood message.

One issue I have with ad hoc naming convention is that while they may make the first month of learning nice and easy they usually don't have the nice synthesizing effect where all of your notations come together beautifully.

Math is terse and there is an initial hurdle to get over. However, once that initial hurdle is cleared there are a lot of things that become obvious as a direct consequence of the notational bootstrapping that we did.

With that said, every time I start looking at Haskell I end up playing with category theory instead which may be indicative of something.

There may not be a general balance. That would explain why so many languages scratch different people's itches.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com