Re:Lenses
by unhammer on Monday June 27, 2022 @04:27AM
(#31891928)
I prefer non-powerful functions for trivial problems:
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Lenses
by lucasdicioccio on Monday June 27, 2022 @04:51AM
(#31892059)
I wouldn't call that trivial but "common", and for these cases we could even use something like catMaybes:
> sum . catMaybes
Lenses (imho) shine when you have to write data-extractors for arbitrary-complex and ill-documented APIs with corner cases or things like HTML scrapping. The beauty of lenses is that you get one composable language across libraries. For instance, if your HTTP-library has lenses and your XML-library has lenses, you can write things like safely composing a getElementsByTagName with some XML-parsing and data extractions:
> response ^.. responseBody . xml . folding universe . named (only "p") . text
and the bonus is that if you need to filter, you can do that with a similar mechanism (e.g., filtering based on some html meta-tag)
overall it feels like SQL-for-arbitrary-structures: dense but powerful
Re:Lenses
by ParetoOptimal on Monday June 27, 2022 @09:23AM
(#31894258)
I prefer a general polymorphic solution to optimize for global simplicityand consistency rather than lots of different ad-hoc simpler solutions that are more complex and/or less composable altogether.