How (not) to write Factorial in Java

Re:How (not) to write Factorial in Java by nostrademons on Wednesday January 26, 2011 @06:59PM (#2145897)

Bad Haskell usually involves poor type abstractions, eg. instead of defining new data types for inputs that are logically distinct but physically identical, you just re-use existing types and add new constructors. Or you end up using tuples for everything. Or (horror!) you encode a bunch of things as strings instead of using the type system at all.

The nice thing about Haskell is that it's really, really hard to write things that accidentally ignore purity, which eliminates a whole class of errors and bad designs. The type system only helps you if you let it, though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How (not) to write Factorial in Java by eru on Thursday January 27, 2011 @08:35PM (#2150424)

Yes, that's sounds plausible.

I've looked at a friend's Haskell program for Huffman encoding, that used raw recursion in a undisciplined way instead of abstracting the control flow out into, say, filters, folds and maps. That was the closed I ever got to ugly Haskell.

[ Parent | on HN ]