I still can't understand why Perl is easily dismissed as "LOL line noise" but Haskell's apparently fine. At least dipping into Perl you can take on the line noise slowly so you have time to absorb each new technique, and you can write it just fine with hardly any of that if you want, and it won't hurt a thing—Haskell seems to dump all that on you up front, and it seems to require it, idiomatically. It's very off-putting.
Well, I had no idea what (&), but you just place the cursor on it in emacs and it will say `(&) :: a -> (a -> b) -> b` that, after you learn this language is enough to understand that `v & f` runs the function `f` with the parameter `v`.
If I was trying to discover what function does that, I'd type the `a -> (a -> b) -> b` (yes, it's that obvious) string on Hoogle, and it would show me the operator.
I have never got that experience with Perl. Every new symbol requires a query into perldoc in a new window, every time you don't know what symbol to use, you keep not knowing, because it's impossible to discover.
Besides, Haskell has a consistent value + operator + value structure, while Perl has a mess.
It's because Haskell's type system at least helps you avoid getting the line noise wrong. If you have to refactor some complicated line noise then the compiler holds your hand.
• Couldn't match expected type ‘([Integer] -> [Integer]) -> [b]’
with actual type ‘[Integer]’
• Possible cause: ‘map’ is applied to too many arguments
In the second argument of ‘(&)’, namely ‘map (* 2) [1, 2, 3]’
In the second argument of ‘($)’, namely
‘map (+ 2) & map (* 2) [1, 2, 3]’
In the expression: map (+ 2) $ map (+ 2) & map (* 2) [1, 2, 3]
ghci is my friend. :i and :t go a long way as a backup for my memory. If Perl (or APL, another language criticized for having a vast array, you should pardon the expression, of unfamiliar operators) has something similar, I've not heard of it.
