I don't see how it's tackling the 'where' block--or it that would even be possible under this scheme. I find that my code is much more legible with the housekeeping and other less important helper-functions defined after the important bits. The clunky code that the author complains about can be much improved using where clauses to break it into chunks.
Taking the authors example and moving some of the processing to a where clause makes the flow much easier to follow:
someFunction conn (Foo n) (K {x=zot}) plib = do
withTransaction conn $ \db ->
coconut <- sizzleQuery [Foob n]
potato <- sizzleQuery [Foob n]
let sizzle = (zotify coconut) ++ potato ++ gravy
record = fasterize $ makeRecord' sizzle
date = dateOrError sizzle
in catch handler $ insertIntoDB sizzle plib
where sizzleQuery = queryTheDB "select * from sausages where sizzle = ?"
zotify c = zot (plib $ zip [1..] c)
dateOrError d = error "Unable to parse date"
`fromMaybe` parseDate d "date"
handler e = do something `with` (k $ the exception)
makeRecord' s = (MakeRecord { recName = sizzle "name"
, recAge = sizzle "age"
, recDate = date
})
$ Plib </> (fromMaybe "" $ sausages >>= bacon)
Also one of my favorite features of Haskell is using the $ as an unmatched left parenthesis, saving you from that blob of closing parenthesis that every lisp expression accumulates.
One last thing, the author complains about the ambiguity of the indentation, but doesn't make any comment about the brace & semi-colon syntax. I personally don't like it, but it should be explained why it isn't an acceptable solution.
Well, brace and semicolon is considered "not idiomatic," though of course lisk as an alternative is even less so.
Regarding "where," it seems like most of the time "let" is an acceptable substitute. "where" is most convenient in conjunction with pattern matching syntax, so perhaps the solution to the problem of where and pattern matches can be neatly handled together.
I forgot to mention that I will be including where; it's one of my favourite things about Haskell! (* 2 (x (where (= x 1))) will be rewritten to 2 * (let x = 1 in x).
Here's my obligatory dumb question of the day. What is the problem he is trying to solve with the macros? It seems super straightforward, so I suspect I'm missing something (being only conversational in Lisp and Haskell, although don't know macros even decently):
Here's the snippet of code that describes the problem (which I don't get):
do exists <- doesFileExist "lalala"
if exists
then ...
else ...
I don't know, what he seems to want to do can be expressed in haskell as
doesFileExist "file" >>= \exists -> if exists
then ...
else ...
When he writes (do (>>= ... in his lisp example I don't think that he understands that do is just syntactic sugar for >>=s and >>s, and that what's actually happening is the data is being "taken out" (for lack of a better term) of a monad.
His problem seems to be that you do have to bother with monadic IO when with a macro he can just write (mif cond ...) and be done with it.
I agree, it looks like :i-o is the unfortunate result of the generic hyphenation-to-capital-letter routine he has. IO should probably be a special case (:io).
How strange. I was just thinking about doing this as a toy project earlier today.
I honestly don't share the OP's hatred of Haskell syntax, nor do I find it categorically worse than lispish languages. It's entertaining that he's gone from capital letters to the sigils (":"). Both tend to be controversial and which is better is more a matter of personal taste than anything.
I agree with another commenter that the lack of pattern matching syntax is something of a deficiency, and I was also troubled over how I'd do this. A "plambda" operator is one possibility that I was considering, though it feels like it's a really hackey embedding of MLish in lispish:
Also, rather than a preprocessor I was thinking of implementing the whole thing in Template Haskell---not because it's easier, but really because I expect the opposite: I figured it'd be a good way to really bite off a big chunk of TH and get good at it.
EDIT: It occurs to me that one could just use a variant on cond to implement pattern matching, e.g., "cond-argv":
(define (fname a b) (cond-argv
((a1 b1) (stuff))
((a2 b2) (stuff))))
Everyone has their own syntactic preferences. And what, really, is the difference between a preference for certain colors in an IDE and a preference for a certain syntax? Why is one easily customizable and the other rigidly defined by a language? If programs in all languages were stored on file as lisp-style AST's, with comments attached to AST nodes, then programmers could view programs using their own preferred syntax, as well as formatting and colors.
The pure version of this idea has failed repeatedly for more than 50 years — noone ever writes their code in M-expressions :)
A debased version of the idea found success in Haskell, where the language syntax is defined as desugaring transformations towards a core calculus, but the internal representation is implementation-specific, and since the syntax was decided up front nobody got invested in writing code in a plain System F.
A novel take on the idea is implemented wholeheartedly in Google's Go, where there's a utility based on the compiler called gofmt that reserializes the AST. They use it not only for style issues, but also to update the entire standard library to reflect syntax changes.
Bit of a plug, I've written something like this except that it doesn't work via GHC and instead outputs source code (which means the gensyms aren't very safe...)
You are right, the difference is that the one sequence is " 0 1 1 2 3 5 ... " while the other is " 1 1 2 3 5 ..." - so it is just shifted by one. The interesting properties of the sequence still remain.
I don't think it's explicitly wrong; I've seen both fib(0) = 1 and fib(0) = 0 before. Wikipedia shows:
By definition, the first two Fibonacci numbers are 0
and 1, and each subsequent number is the sum of the
previous two. Some sources omit the initial 0, instead
beginning the sequence with two 1s.
While programming in Haskell I also struggled with Haskell's brand of whitespace indentation, even though I come from Python. The key difference in usability between Python's whitespace indentation system and Haskell's indentation system is that you cannot start the lines in a block on the same line as the block.
Python's is more restrictive: you must skip a line before starting a multi-line indented block; i.e., this is not legal:
if a == b: print "asdf"
print "a"
else:
print "a"
This lets you decide on a very simple rule for dealing with whitespace indentation: Each new block is started by inserting a carriage return and the proper number of tabs.
Not so in Haskell, because you are given the freedom to put the first line of a block in the same line as the block starter:
let x = 1
y = 2
do x <- 1
y <- 2
Now you need to decide whether to be 3 or 4 spaces in depending on whether it is a let or do block. You cannot use the rule, because the appropriate number of spaces is no longer a multiple of your indentation unit.
That's just the simple case, because you are also allowed to put these block starters (let, do, case, etc) at arbitrary points in an expression:
f = let x = 1 in let y = x + 2 in
y + 1
This is syntactically correct Haskell; but personally I like the idea of lexical scope being represented by indentation level, which is not reflected here.
It becomes very easy to get yourself into situations where you cannot use the Python rule. But you can also impose restrictions on yourself so you _can_ use that rule. Like always treating let, do, in, etc as "{"'s in C:
f = let
x = 1
in
let
y = x + 2
in
y + 1
This may look a little verbose. But in real cases there would be a lot more statements there. In the middle of all this I want to maintain the idea "number of tabs corresponds to lexical scope". We can also push the analogy to "{"'s in C and adopt the "K&R" style, but on block-starting expressions:
f = let
x = 1 in let
y = x + 2 in
y + 1
There's also the solution of editors that just figure out where to indent, in which case we can make it look pretty and still get the indentation right. I think it's best to develop a consistent style that will work across editors though.
My rule has been to just pad "do" appropriately. Almost everything else works out well with a 4-space tab. Also, don't ever use only one-or-two spaces for indentation, and if you're finding you have a long expression with so much indentation and unindentation that it gets confusing I usually find I'm doing something confusing and should simplify it anyway. For example:
let x = y
in do something
something with
( lots
. of
. args
)
something else
Is not that hard to read for me, and actually looks quite nice.
And if you're getting those terribly long-expressions, break them up. They can always be broken out in a let expression to be simpler, and with let the precedence is obvious.
Also, the colon in python's syntax is one of its most important and often disregarded features. It gives such a simple and efficient cue that a new block is.
Taking the authors example and moving some of the processing to a where clause makes the flow much easier to follow:
Also one of my favorite features of Haskell is using the $ as an unmatched left parenthesis, saving you from that blob of closing parenthesis that every lisp expression accumulates.One last thing, the author complains about the ambiguity of the indentation, but doesn't make any comment about the brace & semi-colon syntax. I personally don't like it, but it should be explained why it isn't an acceptable solution.