4 ms·
Of course the currently trending answer would be to use monads. Preferably implemented in Go.
by yoz-y 11y ago
Of course the currently trending answer would be to use monads. Preferably implemented in Go.
- arethuza 11y agoI remember a colleague who wrote Common Lisp in the style of Occam - with concurrent process and communication channels. His code actually looked a lot like some Go code I've seen - hardly surprising I guess given the common ancestry to CSP.
- lispm 11y agoBtw., CSP in Hoare's Book is a Lisp... http://www.usingcsp.com/cspbook.pdf http://www.usingcsp.com/cspbook.pdf Page vi: > The proposed implementations are unusual in that they use a very simple purely functional subset of the well-known programming language LISP. This will afford additional excitement to those who have access to a LISP implementation on which to exercise and demonstrate their designs.
- marcosdumay 11y agoHum... Haskell monads are very concrete when compared to the Java factories. They represent abstract stuff, but always a single well defined abstract concept. They do not make the code more generic. Maybe you can replace those with lenses, or applicatives in general. People do overuse those.