Talk:Practical numbers: Difference between revisions
→One of many examples of using Haskell in Python.
Line 33:
</pre>
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 20:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hout wants to pass-off a Haskell like style of programming that was rejected by the Python community when put to members of the steering committee, as idiomatic Python. Hout wants to hide the Haskell style used and present his code as idiomatic Python when it is not.▼
: Absolutely Donald – the Python and Haskell functions '''do indeed''' have the same type semantics, and the nested values defined by those two solutions '''are indeed''' intended to parallel each other, but those are '''comments''' in the Python code – '''very''' helpful to the mental clarity of the coder and reader, but, like any comment, '''not''' parsed by Python interpreters or compilers. They are not syntactic, they are not "in a language", they are just helpful comments, in a helpful and universal notation.
: The Python tooling is the only objective judge of whether I am doing what you call "using Haskell in Python". If I were, the interpreters and linters would very soon choke and tell us. No language that constrained the content of comments would be much use.
: Rosetta Code aims to show how languages are '''similar''' as well as different (as the landing page puts it).
: The composition of pure functions is not only a useful and coherent approach to general problem-solving, it is also deeply anchored in the underlying mathematics of function composition, and, like the Hindley-Milner notation which worries you, it is language-independent, and good at foregrounding what languages '''share'''.
: Are addition and concatenation Python 'features' ? Do we avoid them because other languages can also express them ?
: No. They are universal relationships which any useful language will have some way of expressing.
: Booleans and integers, and lists, tuples and strings are also sets of values which have mathematical and language-independent definitions, and we can represent these sets in more or less '''any''' complete and practically useful language.
: Hindley-Milner notation is useful precisely because it has a mathematical generality which lets us define (and reason about) value structures which are '''not''' language-dependent, and '''do''' help us think about how complex values can (or can't) click together into the patterns that we need. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 21:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
▲Hout wants to pass-off a Haskell like style of programming that was rejected by the Python community when put to members of the steering committee, as idiomatic Python. Hout wants to hide the Haskell style used and present his code as idiomatic Python when it is not.
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 20:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
: Ah ... so here we see the the focus '''already''' shifting away from an attack on '''comments''' to the admission of a broader intention to "discourage" the whole approach of composing of pure functions in Python.
: Apparently the '''whole approach''' should be labelled "Haskell" or "not Python", and harassed ...
: You appeal to a story about "The Python Community", the details of which I haven't personally followed closely or been in any way involved in, though I '''am''' aware of not only of a largish literature on functional programming in Python, and of significant use of Python for this approach to composing code, let alone the acknowledgment in the opening paragraph of the Python itertools module of debts to languages like SML and Haskell,
: but isn't this the '''Rosetta Code''' community here ? Is dismissing my approach as "passing off" consistent with the goal of comparing and learning from '''different''' approaches ?
: I think we have a larger problem here ...
:[[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 21:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
== Haskell type hints are not valid Python==
| |||