What I dislike about all Haskell examples on every blog is that the writer happily assume that I'm familiar enough with Haskell syntax to understand the code.
In the ordinary method, there's a function name, it takes one input, and returns a result; easy-peasy. Yse, what the method does isn't clear, but at least I know the methods name!
Now lets look at the Haskel fuction.
tryAccept :: Int -> Reservation -> MaybeT ReservationsProgram Int
I've read enough of these Haskel enthusiast blogs to know that the name of the function is tryAccept (it helps that it's the same as the C# method), and it takes in two parameters, an int and a Reservation and returns a Mayb of a ReservationProgram. And it's somehow an int, so it's like an enum? That's weird, clearly I don't understand Hasket syntax.
And then later, I'm told that it's simple to figure out what a ReservationsProgram is because there's some enum that doesn't include the word "ReservationProgram" in it.
In the ordinary method, there's a function name, it takes one input, and returns a result; easy-peasy. Yse, what the method does isn't clear, but at least I know the methods name!
Now lets look at the Haskel fuction. tryAccept :: Int -> Reservation -> MaybeT ReservationsProgram Int
I've read enough of these Haskel enthusiast blogs to know that the name of the function is tryAccept (it helps that it's the same as the C# method), and it takes in two parameters, an int and a Reservation and returns a Mayb of a ReservationProgram. And it's somehow an int, so it's like an enum? That's weird, clearly I don't understand Hasket syntax.
And then later, I'm told that it's simple to figure out what a ReservationsProgram is because there's some enum that doesn't include the word "ReservationProgram" in it.
No offence, but this isn't enticing me to Haskel.