Haskell confusion (81)

8 Name: !WAHa.06x36 2005-11-05 14:19 ID:S3bCbd+J

> It's a retarded notation in my opinion, but it makes sense because of the way these languages don't take multiple arguments.

Well, that's just the thing, isn't it? Why are these languages arbitarily forbidding multiple arguments, and then going to great lengths to re-introduce them? You could argue that it's useful to be able to create functions that have several arguments set to static values, which is true, but currying sucks at this too, because you can't set arbitary arguments, you have to set them in a specific order. In the end, it's all incredibly lame academic wanking.

Actually, what it is, is an eruv. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv

Orthodox Judaism forbids a number of things on the shabbat. However, this is apparently far too inconvenient to actually follow, so what is done is that a wire is strung up around an entire neighbourhood, creating a "wall" that makes the whole neighbourhood a walled-in area, where these actions are allowed.

Basically, you create an arbitary limitations, and then you spend a whole lot of effort to get around your arbiatry self-imposed limitations without technically breaking it. I think it's retarded in religious dogma, and I think it's retarded in programming languages.

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.