undefined | Better HN

0 pointsCalmStorm5y ago0 comments

In Unix:

    a; b    # Execute command b after a. The result of a is not used by b.

In Haskell:

    a >> b  # Run function b after a. The result of a is not used by b.

In Unix:

    a | b    # Execute command b after a. The result of a is used by b.

In Haskell:

    a >>= b  # Run function b after a. The result of a is used by b.

0 comments

cnity5y ago

Nitpick, sort of, but in unix, a | b executes a and b in parallel, not sequentially. This somewhat complicates the analogy with programming. They're more like functions operating on a data stream.

Edit: I might be misinterpreting your use of "execute _after_". You may not mean "after the completion of a" but instead "operating on the results of a, asynchronously" in which case, apologies.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsCalmStorm5y ago0 comments

In Unix:

    a; b    # Execute command b after a. The result of a is not used by b.

In Haskell:

    a >> b  # Run function b after a. The result of a is not used by b.

In Unix:

    a | b    # Execute command b after a. The result of a is used by b.

In Haskell:

    a >>= b  # Run function b after a. The result of a is used by b.

0 comments

cnity5y ago

Nitpick, sort of, but in unix, a | b executes a and b in parallel, not sequentially. This somewhat complicates the analogy with programming. They're more like functions operating on a data stream.

Edit: I might be misinterpreting your use of "execute _after_". You may not mean "after the completion of a" but instead "operating on the results of a, asynchronously" in which case, apologies.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse