3 ms·

>They seem to have huge potential for hard to follow code as you need to mentally unpack and remember more layers of abstraction That's the beauty of abstracti

>They seem to have huge potential for hard to follow code as you need to mentally unpack and remember more layers of abstraction That's the beauty of abstraction without side effects, you don't need to unpack anything. If you know what the inputs are and the outputs are, you don't need to know how it works or what type classes are even used to transform certain things. People use sequence all the time in Scala, not realizing it's only able to be implemented with HKTs of Applicative and Traverse. FYI, sequence flips a list of Futures to a Future of List, or a vector of Trys to a Try of Vector, etc.

mpartel 9y ago
Fair point about 'sequence'. There are probably a bunch of these I use regularly in Scala without realizing it. Though as a counterpoint, 'Future.sequence' wouldn't really lose _that_ much if it didn't return a collection of the same type. And I haven't yet felt the need for a generic `sequence`, which I'm sure scalaz has. I don't buy your point about not needing to unpack side-effectless code, however. There are _always_ reasons to dig into code, be it bugs, surprising edge cases, poor documentation, insufficient performance, or even just curiosity. And those high-level abstractions tend to be visible in module interfaces too. I remember some Haskell libraries being very hard to figure out how to use if you didn't know your category theory :)
- hota_mazi 9y ago
  It's a pretty typical symptom I've seen a lot of hardcore FP developers exhibit: they forget how much time it took them to reach their level of mastery. It's like spending ten years learning to speak Russian and then criticizing anyone who says that learning Russian is difficult. Puzzling out scalaz code is difficult and requires an enormous investment in hours and practice, investment that a lot of people prefer to put into different learnings.
  - willtim 9y ago
    Mainstream developers forget just how much time they invest in learning the latest fad frameworks with new ad-hoc concepts and terminology. I guess "Hardcore FP developers" are fed up with this state of affairs and are looking towards mathematics to provide guidance and common patterns/names. At least any knowledge of mathematics will not become outdated!
  - runT1ME 9y ago
    Yea, puzzling out some scalaz code takes investment. On the other hand, the library is used for web apps, network servers, database based applications, streaming libraries etc. It's incredibly multipurpose, more so than even Spring or Guava or LINQ, and these are things that developers regularly have to invest serious time in. The argument is just that FP libraries (like Scalaz) have a bigger payoff in the investment. At Verizon Labs were have 20+ microservices that I have touched/looked at. Some use Akka, some use Play, some use Jetty, some use Http4s but everyone makes use of Scalaz somehow.
    - hota_mazi 9y ago
      > The argument is just that FP libraries (like Scalaz) have a bigger payoff in the investment. It depends on the people, not everybody has the inclination to dive so deep into hard core FP and they will be more productive using a different approach. Don't make the mistake of thinking you've found the only software silver bullet that exists and that people who don't use it "don't get it", which is another attitude I've seen a lot of hardcore FP advocates embrace.

mpartel 9y ago

Fair point about 'sequence'. There are probably a bunch of these I use regularly in Scala without realizing it. Though as a counterpoint, 'Future.sequence' wouldn't really lose _that_ much if it didn't return a collection of the same type. And I haven't yet felt the need for a generic `sequence`, which I'm sure scalaz has. I don't buy your point about not needing to unpack side-effectless code, however. There are _always_ reasons to dig into code, be it bugs, surprising edge cases, poor documentation, insufficient performance, or even just curiosity. And those high-level abstractions tend to be visible in module interfaces too. I remember some Haskell libraries being very hard to figure out how to use if you didn't know your category theory :)

hota_mazi 9y ago
It's a pretty typical symptom I've seen a lot of hardcore FP developers exhibit: they forget how much time it took them to reach their level of mastery. It's like spending ten years learning to speak Russian and then criticizing anyone who says that learning Russian is difficult. Puzzling out scalaz code is difficult and requires an enormous investment in hours and practice, investment that a lot of people prefer to put into different learnings.
- willtim 9y ago
  Mainstream developers forget just how much time they invest in learning the latest fad frameworks with new ad-hoc concepts and terminology. I guess "Hardcore FP developers" are fed up with this state of affairs and are looking towards mathematics to provide guidance and common patterns/names. At least any knowledge of mathematics will not become outdated!
- runT1ME 9y ago
  Yea, puzzling out some scalaz code takes investment. On the other hand, the library is used for web apps, network servers, database based applications, streaming libraries etc. It's incredibly multipurpose, more so than even Spring or Guava or LINQ, and these are things that developers regularly have to invest serious time in. The argument is just that FP libraries (like Scalaz) have a bigger payoff in the investment. At Verizon Labs were have 20+ microservices that I have touched/looked at. Some use Akka, some use Play, some use Jetty, some use Http4s but everyone makes use of Scalaz somehow.
  - hota_mazi 9y ago
    > The argument is just that FP libraries (like Scalaz) have a bigger payoff in the investment. It depends on the people, not everybody has the inclination to dive so deep into hard core FP and they will be more productive using a different approach. Don't make the mistake of thinking you've found the only software silver bullet that exists and that people who don't use it "don't get it", which is another attitude I've seen a lot of hardcore FP advocates embrace.