[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.

[tome]

You are giving an extremely unfavourable impression of the Haskell community. If you care about the Haskell community, please stop interacting with people like this.

[instig007]

I don't care about Haskell community. If you've got anything to object to regarding my rebuttal of the OP's claims about Haskell and/or Nix (that are completely untrue and misleading), please state them instead of assuming that I speak on behalf of any community. I'm calling out someone's incompetence here, if you don't like it, that's on you.

[tome]

You're right: I don't like it. It's on me? OK, fine by me. I'm glad if you're saying you don't believe your behaviour reflects on the Haskell community, and I hope everyone reading this thread takes that to heart. In my opinion this kind of superior, petty attitude is not welcome in the Haskell community.