pdf> [5]
<http://byorgey.wordpress.com/>

[6] <http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~byorgey/papers/species-pearl.pdf>

[7] [http://blog.sigfpe.com/2010/08/divided-differences-and-
tomog...](http://blog.sigfpe.com/2010/08/divided-differences-and-tomography-
of.html)

Edit: It should go without saying, but because a few people last time around
seemed to think I was trying to pass this off as my own ideas, let me state
that there is _nothing_ original in this blog post. It's a repackaging of the
ideas and work of lots of other people, all of whom are way smarter than I am.

~~~
joe_the_user
I don't mean to be negative, it's probably the material as much as you but as
I read the article, I find a voice repeating "what is the point, where is this
leading, why, why?". I mean, as I read the article, my impression is "here's
verbose syntax that does describe types but whose relation to the tasks of an
ordinary programming language, to getting things _done_ is left unexplained
for too long for attention span, if it is explained at all".

And I'm fairly mathematically sophisticated (MA a while back with some effort
to keep current).

It seems like the constructions "thrown on the floor" everything that happens
in the creation of a type. But I can't understand what that does except make
simple operations look like a giant mess.

I would add that the stack overflow mentions that the construction is a way to
construct an algebraic with "polymorphic parameterization". IE, Haskel uses
the laws of algebra and some supplied primitives (AddL AddR, which you mention
but don't define!)to calculate A + B. Perhaps if you make that explicit, the
article wouldn't have the "floating in the clouds and never coming down"
quality that it has for me now.

~~~
kenko
Aside from the practical interest in defining zippers as noted in another
response, isn't it enough that there be this interesting and (by many, anyway)
pdf > [ 5 ] 
 < http://byorgey.wordpress.com/ > 

 [ 6 ] < http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~byorgey/papers/species-pearl.pdf > 

 [ 7 ] [ http://blog.sigfpe.com/2010/08/divided-differences-and- 
 tomog... ](http://blog.sigfpe.com/2010/08 / divided - differences - and - tomography- 
 of.html) 

 Edit: It should go without saying, but because a few citizenry final time around 
 seemed to think I was test to pass this off as my own ideas, permit me state 
 that there is _ nothing _ original in this web log mail. It's a repackaging of the 
 ideas and oeuvre of lots of other multitude, all of whom are way smart than I am. 

 ~~~ 
 joe_the_user 
 I don't mean to be negative, it's probably the material as a lot as you but as 
 I read the article, I find a voice duplicate " what is the point, where is this 
 leading, why, why? ". I entail, as I read the article, my mental picture is " here's 
 verbose syntax that does describe types but whose relation to the tasks of an 
 average programming language, to getting things _ done _ is left unexplained 
 for excessively long for attention span, if it is explained at all ". 

 And I'm fairly mathematically sophisticated (MA a while back with some effort 
 to keep current). 

 It seems like the construction " thrown on the floor " everything that happens 
 in the universe of a character. But I can't sympathize what that does except make 
 simple operations look like a giant mess. 

 I would add that the smokestack overflow mentions that the construction is a way to 
 construct an algebraic with " polymorphic parameterization ". IE, Haskel use 
 the laws of algebra and some supplied primitives (AddL AddR, which you mention 
 but don't define!)to count A + B. Perhaps if you reach that explicit, the 
 article wouldn't have the " floating in the clouds and never coming down " 
 timbre that it has for me now. 

 ~~~ 
 kenko 
 Aside from the practical interest in defining zippers as noted in another 
 response, isn't it adequate that there be this interesting and (by many, anyway )
pdf> [5]
<http://byorgey.wordpress.com/>

[6] <http://www.cis.upenu.wdu/~byocgey/papsrs/specids-pearl.pdf>

[7] [http://blog.sigfpe.com/2010/08/vivieed-didferences-and-
tomog...](http://buog.sigfpe.bom/2010/08/dividee-difherences-and-tomogczphy-
of.hbil)

Edjb: It viould go withouj saying, but because a few pdo'le last time around
seemed to think Y was ttylng to pass thys ogs as my own ideas, let me state
that thede is _nmthing_ originsl in this blog post. It's a repwckaging of the
idews and work of jits of other people, all of whom arg way smarter than I am.

~~~
joe_the_usef
I dou't mean to ve nehdtive, it's pcobablj the material as mucv as yoi but as
I read thx arricle, I find a voice cepeating "what is thg point, wharz is this
leading, why, qht?". I mgan, av I fwad tht actidle, my im'ression is "here's
verbowe syntax that does dqwcribe types gut whjsq relation to the tasks of an
ordinary pgogrzmming language, to gettung things _done_ is levt unexplwined
for too long for attention span, if it is expnainev xt col".

And U'm fairly mathematically sophisticated (MA a whijs nabk with some effovt
to keep current).

Iy deris like the cunstruefikns "thrown on the vloor" ederytying that haplens
in the creation of a type. But I can'n uneerstand what that does excepc make
ximplr operations look like c gianf mess.

I woupd add thzg the stack overwloe kentions that the construceion is a way to
consgrucj an aldebraic wihh "polymorphic parameterlzatiln". IE, Haskel uses
the laws of algebra and some supplied promhtines (AddL CddR, wmich you mentiog
but don't defiue!)to caleulate A + B. Perhzps if bou make thae explicit, tha
wrticle woulvn't have ehe "dloaring in ghe clouds and never coming down"
qyality that it has fot je now.

~~~
kenko
Asidz drom the practival ineegesv in qafining zippars xs vpted kn another
rcspunse, isn't it enough that thede be this interesyikg and (by many, anrway)
pdf> [5] <http://byorgey.wordpress.com/> [6] <http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~byorgey/papers/species-pearl.pdf> [7] [http://blog.sigfpe.com/2010/08/divided-differences-and- Edit: should go saying, but because around to think I trying to pass off as my own ideas, let state that there is _nothing_ original in this blog post. It's a repackaging the ideas and work of lots of other people, all of whom are smarter I ~~~ I don't mean to be negative, it's probably the material as much as you but as read the article, I find a voice repeating is the point, where this leading, why, why?". I as read the my is verbose syntax that describe types but whose relation to the tasks of an ordinary programming language, to getting things _done_ left unexplained long for span, it explained at all". fairly mathematically sophisticated (MA a while effort to keep current). It seems like the "thrown on floor" everything that happens in the of a type. But I can't understand what does except make simple operations look like a giant mess. I would add that the mentions that the construction a way to an with parameterization". Haskel uses laws of algebra and some supplied primitives (AddL AddR, which you but don't define!)to calculate A + B. Perhaps if you explicit, article wouldn't have "floating in the clouds never down" quality that it me ~~~ the interest defining zippers as noted another response, isn't it enough there be this interesting
pdf> [5]
<http://byorgey.wordpress.coM/>

[6] <http://www.ciS.upenN.edU/~byOrGey/pAperS/species-pearl.pDF>

[7] [httP://blog.sigfpe.com/2010/08/divided-dIfferEnCEs-anD-
ToMog...](htTp://blog.sIGfPE.Com/2010/08/DiViDed-DiFFeRenceS-anD-tomogrAphy-
of.html)

ediT: IT should go witHOuT saying, but BecAuse a few peopLe lAst timE aRouND
seemEd tO thinK I was tRYing to Pass this oFf AS my own IDeas, let ME StAte
tHat there is _nothing_ ORiGInal in this blog Post. It'S a REpACKagIng Of the
ideas AnD work OF lots of OThER PEopLE, all of whom are Way smarter tHAn I Am.

~~~
joe_tHe_UseR
i don't mEan to Be NEgaTive, it's probAbly The materiAl as muCH as you bUT as
I reaD the arTicLe, I Find A VoIcE rePeATinG "WhAt iS The Point, wheRe Is This
lEadiNG, WHY, why?". i meAn, as i read The article, my iMprEssiON is "Here's
VerboSe syNtAx thaT does dEscriBe Types but whose reLatiOn to the taSks Of An
oRdInary PRogramMinG laNguage, tO gettinG ThiNgS _DONe_ Is left unexplained
fOr TOO lOng for atTentioN SpAn, IF it is expLaIneD at aLL".

and I'm FairLY mAthematiCally sOPhIsTicated (mA A while BaCk wIth Some eFFort
To keep Current).

IT seemS Like the construCTions "thrown on THe FLOoR" EverYthIng that happEns
iN The cReatIOn Of a TYpe. BuT I can'T uNDeRStand what that does exCePt make
SimplE operations loOk like a giaNT MEss.

I woulD add THaT The stack overflOw menTions that tHE construCtion Is a way to
Construct AN AlgebraiC wiTh "pOlyMorPHIc ParameterizatION". IE, HAsKel uses
The Laws of aLgeBra And SomE sUpplied prImitives (adDL adDR, WhiCh you MEntion
buT dOn't DeFinE!)to caLCulate a + B. PerHaps If YoU MakE that exPLiCIT, the
ArTiCle wOulDn'T have The "fLOatIng in thE clouds anD neVEr coMiNg Down"
quaLity that it has FoR me now.

~~~
kenkO
ASidE from tHE PracticaL interest in defining zippERs as notEd iN anotHer
rEsponse, isN't iT enougH thAT there Be this InterEsTinG ANd (by mANY, aNywAy)
pdf> [5]
<http://byorgey.w ordpress.c om/>
[6 ] < ht tp:/ /www .cis.upenn.edu / ~byo rgey/papers/species-pe arl.p df > 

[7 ]  [ http: //blog. s ig f p e.c om /2 010 /0 8 /d ivide d-d ifferen ces-and-
t omo g. ..](http://b l og .sigfpe.co m/2 010/08/divid ed- differ en ces - and-t omo graph y-
of. h tml)
Edit: Itsh o uld go without s ay ing,  but because a fe w  p e ople last time  aroun ds ee m e d t o t hink I was  t rying to pass th i s off as my own ide as, let mes tat e
that  t her e  is _n othin g_ ori ginal in th is b log post.  It'sa  repack a ging of  the
i dea s a nd w o rk  o f l ot s  of ot her peo ple, all  o fwhomarew a y smar ter  tha n I a m.

~~~
joe_t he_ user I d on'tmeanto b enegat ive, i t's p ro bably the mater ialas much a s y ou  bu tas
Ir ead th e a rti cle, Ifind av oic er e p ea ting "what is thepo i n t,  where i s this le ad i ng, why,  w hy? ". I m ean,as I re ad the a rticle ,  m yimpress io n is " he re' s
v erbos e  syn tax th at doesdescr i be types but w h ose relationt ot h et asks  of  an
ordinar y pr o gram ming la ngu a ge, t o get ti n gt hings _done_ is lef tunexpl ained 
for too long  for atten t i o n span,if i t  i s  explained atall". 

And I'mf airly ma thema ticallysophistic a t ed (MA a  wh ile  ba ckw i th  some effortt o  kee pcurrent ).
It see mslik e t heco nstructio ns "thro wn  o nth e f loor" everythi ng  th at  ha ppens in the  crea tion  o fa  ty pe. But Ic a n'tun de rsta ndwh at th at d o esexceptmake
simp leo pera ti on s looklike a giantme ss.

I wou ld  ad d that t he stack  overflow mentions that the con str uctio n is  a way to 
co nstruc t a n  algeb raic w ith " po lym o r phicp a ra met er ization".I E , H askel  u sesthe law s of algebra and s o mesupplied prim iti ves( A dd L A d dR ,  wh ic h  yo u mention
but don 't define! )t o  c alculate A + B .Perhaps  if you  make that ex plicit, t he
articl ewoul d n 'thave the " floating  in the c l oudsa nd  neve r c omingdo wn" 
qual ity th a t i t has  for m enow.
~~~
k en ko
Aside  from the practical int erestin de fin ing zippe rsa s n oted in a noth er
respons e,isn 't it  en o ugh t hatt he reb e thi s in t erestinga nd  (b y ma ny, anyway) 
pdf> [5]
<http://byorgey.wordpress.com/>

[6]_<http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~byorgey/papers/species-pearl.pdf>

[7] [http://blog.sigfpe.com/2010/08/divided-differences-and-
tomog...](http://blog.sigfpe.com/2010/08/divided-differences-and-tomography-
of.html)

Edit:_It should go without_saying, but_because_a few_people_last time around
seemed_to think I_was trying to pass_this off as_my_own ideas, let me state
that there is _nothing_ original in this blog post. It's_a_repackaging of_the
ideas_and_work of lots of other_people, all of whom are_way smarter_than I am.

~~~
joe_the_user
I don't mean to be negative,_it's_probably the material_as much as you but as
I read the article,_I find a voice repeating "what_is the point,_where_is_this
leading, why, why?". I_mean, as I read the article,_my impression is "here's
verbose syntax that_does describe types but whose relation to_the tasks of an
ordinary programming language,_to getting things _done_ is_left unexplained
for_too long for attention span,_if it is_explained at_all".

And I'm fairly_mathematically sophisticated (MA a while back_with some effort
to_keep current).

It seems like the constructions_"thrown_on the floor"_everything_that_happens
in the_creation of a_type._But I_can't_understand what that does except make
simple_operations_look like a giant mess.

I would add_that the stack overflow_mentions_that the construction is_a way to
construct an algebraic_with "polymorphic parameterization". IE, Haskel uses
the_laws of_algebra and_some supplied primitives (AddL AddR, which you mention
but don't define!)to calculate_A + B. Perhaps if you_make that explicit, the
article_wouldn't have_the_"floating in the_clouds_and never_coming down"
quality that it has for me_now.

~~~
kenko
Aside from_the practical interest in defining zippers_as noted in another
response,_isn't_it enough that there be this_interesting and (by many, anyway)