If we were to create a Rust version of this page for Haskell, what cool programming techniques would you add to it?

  • BB_C@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s not like it’s an odd-ball usage of the symbols, that’d be .. which I vaguely remember some language using.

    I take it, you don’t bash/zsh/…?

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I try not to and if I have to I’d use string interpolation. I’m not even sure whether you’re pulling my leg right know, I literally don’t remember whether they have a string append operator.

      Like 99.999% of the sh I ever wrote was in Makefiles and short wrapper scripts which could just as well be aliases. No argument handling past $@, no nothing the language is just too fickle for me to bother dealing with. The likes of zsh are make-up on a pig, I think I had a quick run-in with fish but never really got the hang. Nushell is different, it’s actually bold enough in its changes to get rid of all the crufty nonsense.

      • BB_C@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Sorry, I thought you meant the use of .. in Rust is odd. So I pointed out that {0..9} and{a..z}is also used at least in bash and zsh. That’s at least 10s of millions of users!

        I know of .. being used for appending by lua at least. So still not odd-ball I would argue, since the people who interacted with lua code in their life probably outnumber those who interacted with all functional languages combined.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Now that you mention it yes Lua is probably the one that I remember. It’s an incredibly well-designed language from start to finish but also culturally an odd-ball. .. isn’t even the biggest offender: Their indices start at 1. Haskell accosts you with zygohistomorphic prepromorphisms but at least [1,2,3] !! 1 is 2.