Haskell for Imperative Programmers #16 - Type inference

In this video we infer types.

[henninb]

You have created very easy to follow videos. I am able to follow along as I am building my first Haskell app. Thank you.

[daryleprice]

Amazing tutorials. It would be much desirable if you would also make tutorials on data analysis in Haskell in the future :)

[alexanderskusnov]

What about 'type', 'newtype' and ` (in names)?

[Drn]

One note on your explanation of variables and functions. I assume (I don’t know it but I’m pretty sure) that there are actually only values and these values can be any object and functions are just objects too. Constructors are objects too, specifically functions (you often differentiate between those). I think that variables are in truth also functions, and when you use them, the function gets called. That’s where the laziness comes from, because every time you use a variable, it gets calculated again (about this part I’m the most unsure as it would be very inefficient, but you’re IO Video pretty clearly showed that. You set a variable to an IO Action and every time you used that variable, the action was performed, as if the variable was actually a function without any arguments). This may be harder to understand for some people than you’re explanation, but for me it’s much easier because it shows that everything is basically the same so you can do everything with everything

[Alkis]

But b = [b] makes totally sense!
At least, that is what any mathematician is going to tell you. I'm talking about dedekind cut.
A real number b is actually a set of real numbers (namely the rational numbers that make up the cut).
So yeah, b = [b]

SPOILER ALERT: I'm being half fascitious, becouse this definition of real numbers was never something I could swallow. But then again, I'm only an engineer. As long as calculus works, I don't care if real analysis and infinit set theory makes sense.