[tel]

    do f1 <- fsStat "file1.txt"
       f2 <- fsStat "file2.txt"
       f3 <- fsStat "file3.txt"
       let ratio = (size f1) / (sum $ map size [f1, f2, f3])
       print ratio 

Or, if you prefer a list

    do fs <- mapM fsStat files
       let ratio = (size . head $ fs) / (sum . map size $ fs)
       print ratio

And that seems to be one small example of why you may have already invented monads. I've been loving the impact of Javascript—modify and immediately see it on the browser—but every time I'm not using Haskell I miss it dearly.

[mjw]

Have to admit that has also been my reaction to some of these javascript async frameworks based on promises or deferreds. Congratulations, you've reimplemented a quirky ad-hoc variant on the continuation and error monads.

Perhaps people don't spot the link as easily because monads are usually explained in terms of a type system, and javascript is untyped? (Or perhaps just because Monad is a very abstract abstraction :)

[chousuke]

Regarding your latter point, I don't think monads are even that abstract. "Monad" just happens to be something out of category theory so it has a mathematical weird-sounding name that you MIGHT guess has something to do with monoids -- if you know what monoids are -- so people think it has to be something complicated when in practice it's just a nice unified interface for glue code.

[tel]

There's the async component as well, but I think `ErrorT e Par a` covers it.

[dchichkov]

Please use more readable names in your code. Use of names like 'fs' in key places makes it unreadable.

[schrototo]

Generally this is of course good advice, but in Haskell it is common practice to use very short names (e.g. x, x', xs, ...) if the context is clear (which it usually is due to small scope, clear function names, type signature, etc.). This makes code much more concise and readable (it also makes it look very "mathematical").

[skrebbel]

> (it also makes it look very "mathematical")

Has that ever been an advantage?

[psionski]

For people that like math, sure, why not. When implementing mathematical concepts, if you squint at Haskell code you can see the original formulas, which should make it easier for people used to this way of thinking.

EDIT:

I'm not implying it's useful just for programming "math stuff", after all, everything can be reduced to a mathematical problem - including game engines[1], web application frameworks[2], etc.

[1] http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~pls/thesis/munc-thesis.pdf [2] https://github.com/yesodweb/yesod

[vidarh]

And it's probably one of the most significant things limiting adoption of Haskell.

[egeozcan]

Exactly. From my point of view, Haskell is the perfect language which unfortunately comes with the worst naming conventions. (I generally develop in C#, F# and JavaScript)

[spiffistan]

Indeed.

[tel]

The convention for Haskell is to keep the active scope of variables very small. Any variable with an active scope of larger than maybe 3 lines, I make longer. Since these examples were hardly longer than that, I feel quite justified with short names.

In Haskell, if you see a short name, look up and down 3 lines for the definition. If you can't find it then complain.

[dchichkov]

I think you are right, and it is a convention in the functional world. People are using (and worse, reusing in a close proximity!) meaningless names like that. And I think these people have zero regard to anyone who is reading their code.

Well... more power to python, and culture that embraces 'what your see is what your get' and super-readable code.

[cscheid]

There is actually an interesting technical reason for having short names in generic Haskell functions. Because of parametricity, the behavior of the function doesn't depend on what the values actually are. The shortness of the names really is meant to convey "don't think about what this is doing, because it's not important for this function". In the traditional example for map,

  map f [] = []
  map f (x:xs) = f x : map f xs

You're supposed to infer from the short function names that f and x could be anything. The only important bit is that you can apply one argument to f (so, for example, f could take two parameters, and then map is just doing a single partial application). In that context, x and xs is actually a better convention than "first" and "rest", because they indicate the adherence to the type system. The naming here is saying that x is of the type of elements of xs, and that this is the only important information for map. This seriously helps in more complicated functions like zip, etc.

[dchichkov]

I'm not so sure that briefness and adherence to that convention improves readability. Of course f, x, xs is much much better than 'first' and 'rest', or 'a', 'b', 'c', but something like 'func' and 'iterable' gives more context. And frees one's attention to more important things, than looking up and down the code.

Compare:

    map f [] = []
    map f (x:xs) = f x : map f xs

With:

    map f xs = [f x | x <- xs]

Or even better, in Python:

    map = lambda func, iterable: [func(x) for x in iterable]

Which one is more readable?

First one requires looking up and down in order to understand what is going on. Second one is better, context is limited to one line. And the last one doesn't require you to remember context at all.

[qu4z-2]

I find

  map f xs = [f x | x <- xs]

the most readable, but given that list comprehension is basically a map and a filter joined together, that definition is kind of cheating.

I find the python version hardest to read (even though it's also "cheating"), which is largely because both the identifiers and the control constructs are alphabetic.

  [func(x) for x in iterable]

I have to read the words to figure out that for/in are the keywords and x/iterable are identifiers. func(x) is at least pretty obviously a function application. I'm glad it's not

  [call func x for x in iterable]

If you compare this to

  [f x | x <- iterable]

The parentheses-less function application might take some getting used to, but then it's pretty easy in my opinion. The | nicely divides it into two parts. A function application on the left, and a "take each element x out of iterable" on the right.

The only other thing is that because "iterable" is such a long word I expect it to be an identifier imported from a library or somewhere else in the program, and certainly not earlier in the line.

In summary, I think a lot of what we find "readable" depends on what we are used to.

[tel]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think long variable names for short-lived variables decreases readability. Oftentimes these "points" are just used to glue functional pipelines together and have little-to-no intrinsic meaning. The true documentation comes from the types and is thus more trustworthy.

[dchichkov]

Oftentimes there is ML code in which both, types are implied and variable names are typical to functional programming (a,b,c,d,e) style.

In C or C++ this newer was the case, because type information was never implied (until recently, when auto was introduced). And in dynamic languages, like Python, this is also almost never the case, because good mainstream developers use object names consistently.

In the functional world however, mainstream (if there is any mainstream, as I often see each developer working in his/her own unique style) folks just say phrases like 'true documentation comes from the types' and write their recursions freely, and with no regard to the reader.

So yes. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[SilasX]

Doesn't that have the problem that it won't get around to computing the ratio until it needs to be printed to the screen?

[tel]

Depends on the semantics of the monad. If you want to control that kind of thing, you can use Strategies from Control.Concurrent. If you just want to force things, then abstract-par [1] and monad-par [2] have some pretty convenient semantics.

[1] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/abstract-par/ [2] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/monad-par/