this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2025
569 points (99.3% liked)

Programmer Humor

25773 readers
2022 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 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] goatinspace@feddit.org 1 points 41 minutes ago

Haskell -> Maybe Language

[–] Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 17 hours ago

I’m not religious but I thought baptism was always conditional on confirmation - not in writing or scripture but via a handshake agreement with the parents or some shit.

[–] NewOldGuard@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Haskell mentioned λ 💪 λ 💪 λ 💪 λ 💪 λ

[–] VitabytesDev@feddit.nl 9 points 1 day ago

Half Life mentioned λ 💪 λ 💪 λ 💪 λ 💪 λ

[–] paulbg@programming.dev 10 points 23 hours ago

i need a therapist who will express life in haskell

[–] squalless@reddthat.com 3 points 19 hours ago

Excerpt from Learn You a Haskell for Great God!

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 54 points 1 day 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 47 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 5 points 19 hours ago

I didn't expect the FP inquisition.

[–] Gork@sopuli.xyz 79 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is a slippery slope to baptismal logic gates

[–] technojamin@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

Turing complete baptisms

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 63 points 1 day ago (5 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

[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Although baptism probably has its roots in the Mikva, which is a ritual cleansing, that's not really the significance within Christianity. Baptism is not a washing away of sins, or impurity, but is rather a symbolic death and resurrection. The Apostle Paul, an early codifier of Christian doctrine whose letters became part of the Christian Bible wrote as follows in Romans chapter 6

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

This has the same end effect- the removal of sin and purification, but the conception is totally different.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 16 hours ago

Jesus was a revolutionary. He removed all weaknesses that could be used against the Jewish people, from temples to stockpiles to using money. He made the early church suck resources from an occupying force while giving nothing back, not even disobedience that could justify a crack down

In this process, he replaced many rituals with simpler versions that can be done without any special requirements. He reworked every ritual so that it couldn't be taken away, it couldn't be used to force compliance

Paul was a true believer and philosopher, his job was to sell it to the people. His words were canonized alongside the gospels because they were convenient when reframing Jesus's teachings with the values of the Roman religion... Plenty less convenient writings were buried instead

Paul was a transitional figure who found himself in between the early church and unexpected gentile converts... He had to rebrand the rituals for a wider audience while keeping the core message. Nothing against the guy... He was in an impossible position and did his best

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 55 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

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 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Baptism is such a weird thing.

I think Haskell is such a weird thing

[–] expr@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago

Dunno what to tell ya, it's great.

[–] Gork@sopuli.xyz 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 6 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Can you get more clean than clean?

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

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 7 points 1 day 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 1 points 1 day 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.

[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Incoming baptismal penetration estimate from carnal sins: -17 layers

Shield integrity: 69%

Hull integrity: 100%

System: stable

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

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

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day 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 1 day ago

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

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

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

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

Doubly so with religion, though 🤷

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

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

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

That seems likely, zealots love a good dividing line. I'm reminded of all the weird obsessing in the Mishnah about wine because the non-Jews of the period used it in sacrifices.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Well there were also times it was unsafe to use red wine because the non-Jews were looking for any excuse to claim it was the blood of Christian babies.

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

This was before that - Avodah Zarah is the one I actually read through.

Like, you can't leave a barrel of mashed grapes too long, because it's then assumed a pagan broke in, danced on it and left, turning it into pagan wine which is the same as doing idolatry yourself, somehow. And it goes on.

There's other examples as well, of course. Puritans got worked up about Catholic-seeming practices within the Church of England, although I don't remember which ones, off the top of my head.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 22 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 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] Stizzah@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 day ago

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

[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago

Which denominations implement idempotent baptisms?

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

Sounds like Haskell needs an official Saint.

[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 day ago

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

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

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