[instig007]

The fact that you say that haskell has operators and that you look for a distinction in syntax for functions and reduced values in the expression-driven language would be enough to say that you opine too strongly about things you don't have a solid understanding of. The same applies to your critique of Nix. If you ever tried recursive overrides of declarative definitions in, as you recommended, a subset of Python, you'd never claim that Nix is a footgun-laden language.

[IshKebab]

> The fact that you say that haskell has operators

Oh you mean the things that look like operator, behave like operators, and are commonly referred to as operators by Haskell programmers - even in the Haskell Wiki? Those operators?

https://tech.fpcomplete.com/haskell/tutorial/operators/

https://github.com/haskellcats/haskell-operators

https://wiki.haskell.org/index.php?title=Infix_operator

What exactly do you think an operator is?

[instig007]

> https://tech.fpcomplete.com/haskell/tutorial/operators/

You're a prime example of a person who reads a page on the Internet and takes it at a face value without understanding the meaning and the context behind the words:

> One of the most common operators, and source of initial confusion, is the $ operator. All this does is apply a function.

Did you miss the part that says "All this does is apply a function"?

Here's how you define (+) among other things: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/ghc-internal-9.1201.0/do...

    instance Num Int where
        I# x + I# y = I# (x +# y)

whereas (+#) is defined as a bridge from unboxed ints provided by the runtime to their efficient low-level machine representation, accomodating all instances of a data type defined as `Int = I# Int#` (the left-hand side is the name of the type, the right-hand side is the name of a constructor that accepts a single value of type Int# - the low-level primitive provided by the GHC implementation).

The (+) in `I# x + I# y =` is a function definition in infix form. That's the same form you can use for any other infix function if you wish so:

    ghci> a `iAmHelping` b = a b + b 

    ghci> :t iAmHelping
    iAmHelping :: Num a => (a -> a) -> a -> a 

> Oh you mean the things that look like operator, behave like operators

Let me see your regular operators do the following, then we talk:

     plus = (+)
     a  = (2 +)
     c  = (2 `plus`)
     c' = plus 2
     d  = (+) 2
     d' = (+ 2)
     e  = 2 `plus` 2
     f  = 2 + 2

I'm glad that's the only thing you object to, though.

[IshKebab]

> Did you miss the part that says "All this does is apply a function"?

Did you miss the part where it's called an "operator"? Your claim was that Haskell doesn't have operators.

I guess you're a prime example of someone that can't remember what the debate is.

[instig007]

Ahah, if someone calls an infix function an operator it must be it, right? Do you also believe that Haskell functions return values because random articles on the Internet say that the functions return values via `return` "keyword"? Years of catering the invalid (but "familiar") terminology to outsiders so that they can land into the language must've done their job.

> I guess you're a prime example of someone that can't remember what the debate is.

There's no debate, you asked me why I said that you weren't solid. And I show you that you don't have a solid foundation in the tool that you opine on. You refuse the ground truth presented to you in code, and you opt to someone's verbal description of an infix function being an operator. You use a second-hand opinion to form your mental model about a thing, and then you opine on the thing with that invalid foundation that was made for you (by some believing individuals claiming it's the best approach), so that you don't feel intimidated from the get-go. No wonder you don't know why there's no distinctive difference between functions and reduced values in syntax. And that's not only Haskell, you also don't know Nix enough to understand how silly your take is about a subset of Python being better than a specialized language for the problem of cascading graph changes in build systems.

[IshKebab]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_(computer_programming...

Search for Haskell.

Good to know you didn't have any real reasons to think I'm not a solid programmer anyway. Bye.

[instig007]

Wikipedia keyword search is the last resort of a mediocre engineer, thanks for confirming my words.

> Good to know you didn't have any real reasons to think I'm not a solid programmer anyway.

I'd easily demonstrate more reasons why you're not solid, I will probably do it in the future if I see more of your silly opinions on the things you don't know. But thankfully, in the context of Haskell the comments have already shown your true lack of any substantial knowledge. I hope you will at least obstain from commenting on Haskell and Nix in the future, don't embarrass yourself.