>>245I got a laugh outta his wall of text and had to share, it's not the only silly point in there after all. I believe they must've meant as parameters to (*) since * is infixed like a newbie familiar with other languages would expect. It's still a silly point since it's little different from Lisp or Ruby once you ignore the currying under the hood.
I'd sought a few anti-learning-Haskell opinions out of frustration and having to shelve it for the moment. And while I concur that a lot of the hype is an "emperor has no clothes" situation and a lot of
that has to do with how the mystique is preserved by the learning materials being not very good, the language is hardly a mistake in every dimension lol.
The primary reason I was looking at the language was for insights. I was hoping to write better game engine code from said insights, but ultimately game engines are some of the most sequential, stateful programs there are and I know other functional, lazy-eval-lovin' languages so I got like nothing out of it.
I'm totally willing to call diss on all the single-letter identifiers and stuff though. If there's anything you should learn from a pure functional style, it's that a need to comment code is in inverse proportion to how well a name describes a thing.