this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2025
441 points (99.6% liked)

Programmer Humor

25755 readers
1506 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] paulbg@programming.dev 5 points 3 hours ago

i need a therapist who will express life in haskell

[–] NewOldGuard@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Haskell mentioned λ 💪 λ 💪 λ 💪 λ 💪 λ

[–] VitabytesDev@feddit.nl 7 points 4 hours ago

Half Life mentioned λ 💪 λ 💪 λ 💪 λ 💪 λ

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 41 points 14 hours ago

Priest: If you are not yet baptised, I baptise you in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit. Else break.

Parents: *sweating nervously*...else what

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 36 points 16 hours ago
[–] Gork@sopuli.xyz 69 points 19 hours ago

This is a slippery slope to baptismal logic gates

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 55 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

Baptism is such a weird thing. It's ritualized cleansing turned into one and done

You can get baptized as many times as you like, it doesn't stack

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 44 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Per the actual wiki, some denominations seem to think it's a sin or heresy to do someone more than once. Which seems like what the nullification in the baptize function is supposed to capture.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 16 hours ago

some denominations seem to think it's a sin or heresy to do someone more than once

Those denominations must have really high divorce rates..

[–] Tanoh@lemmy.world 24 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Baptism is such a weird thing.

I think Haskell is such a weird thing

[–] expr@programming.dev 2 points 5 hours ago

Dunno what to tell ya, it's great.

[–] Gork@sopuli.xyz 25 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Could you imagine how op you could become though if baptisms stacked

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 6 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

Can you get more clean than clean?

Numbers are a human thing. The universe don't care

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 20 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

I imagine if baptisms stacked, you could pile on a gazillion of them like ablative armor against incoming sin.

[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Incoming baptismal penetration estimate from carnal sins: -17 layers

Shield integrity: 69%

Hull integrity: 100%

System: stable

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Lol, imagine if showers stacked. You could spend a week showering and then all filth just disappears when it touches you

But then, what happens to the filth?

The only way I see this working is if you shower, you just continuously wash filth off yourself. But then does it all just kick in when you walk out of the shower? Or maybe, you never become clean until you've washed a lifetime of filth off yourself, then you're clean forever

I'm imagining every baby just covered in sludge, and after years of washing they become clean. Imagine your kid just never gets cleaner, and everyone just thinks you're a terrible parent. Imagine cleaning your kid and they become clean way ahead of schedule

There's some real existential horror here

[–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 hours ago

In reality, if you bathe too much you just stand to lose too much sebum, making it easier for dirt to stick to your skin (and harder to remove) until the layer forms again.

[–] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I think erasing one's body could make you more clean than clean

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

So what you're saying is that fundies need to be cremated? Possibly AFTER death from other causes?

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago

no no. they need to switch to Flouroantimonic acid instead of just flowing water.

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 3 points 16 hours ago

Conceptual numeracy is a human thing. The universe absolutely cares about quantifiable physical properties which we represent as numbers.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 16 hours ago

Numbers are a human thing. The universe don't care

Doubly so with religion, though 🤷

[–] MrQuallzin@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

The LDS (Mormons) actually do repeat it, in a sense. Their weekly sacrament is a renewal of their baptismal blessings

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 6 points 16 hours ago

Probably the reason some other sects call double-dipping a sin, so as to not be like those Mormons.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

That honestly seems like the best way to write conditionalBaptize but I still hate it. Probably because IRL you'd just rewrite baptism instead of retrofitting the function with a clever use of id.

[–] expr@programming.dev 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

It looks pretty normal to me as a professional Haskeller, though I suppose it's perhaps slightly cleaner to write it as conditionalBaptize p = fromMaybe p $ baptize p. It's largely just a matter of taste and I'd accept either version when reviewing an MR.

Edit: I just thought of another version that actually is far too clever and shouldn't be used:

conditionalBaptize = ap fromMaybe baptize, making use of the monad instance for ->. But yeah, don't do this.

[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 9 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

This is probably an ok use for a GADT. Something like:

{-# LANGUAGE DataKinds      #-}
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs          #-}
{-# LANGUAGE KindSignatures #-}

data Bap = Baptized | Unbaptized

data Person :: Bap -> * where
   Baptize :: Person Unbaptized -> Person Baptized
   NewPerson :: Person Unbaptized

conditionalBaptize :: Person a -> Person Baptized
conditionalBaptize p =
    case p of NewPerson -> Baptize p
              Baptize _ -> p

main = return ()
[–] KazuchijouNo@lemy.lol 12 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Thank you for refactoring baptism. How do we push this to production now?

[–] Stizzah@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 16 hours ago

Hey hey hey, let's start with a PR, we are not savages here aren't we?

[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 7 points 18 hours ago

Which denominations implement idempotent baptisms?

[–] fubarx@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds like Haskell needs an official Saint.

[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 9 points 16 hours ago

There's an old joke about functional programming separating Church from state.

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

How would this read try-catch-ing with the Mormon baptism for dead Jewish people ?