Thanks. I am referring to, for instance, the 'method notation' introduced in that article.
I think I know what you mean by chunking. It is my understanding that it is a counter-productive thing, though. Just like how with 'frameworks' imperative programmers lose perception of the technical debt they incur by not knowing what their code actually does.
Maybe this line of thought is not universal but I'd presume the majority of programmers would be afraid to submit code to a project where they don't really know the notational mix and syntactic sugar in use.
Syntax sugar in Haskell tends to be different than other languages. Since it's essentially just do-notation and do-notation follows monads and monads are required to follow a hearty chunk of behavioral laws... It's actually quite similar across the board what do-notation means. This makes chunking far more effective.
I think I know what you mean by chunking. It is my understanding that it is a counter-productive thing, though. Just like how with 'frameworks' imperative programmers lose perception of the technical debt they incur by not knowing what their code actually does.
Maybe this line of thought is not universal but I'd presume the majority of programmers would be afraid to submit code to a project where they don't really know the notational mix and syntactic sugar in use.