5 ms·
Despite traces of interesting ideas -- spreadsheets are underappreciated, so is Multics -- this article is full of hot air. It implicitly equates Haskell with
by sevensor 8y ago
Despite traces of interesting ideas -- spreadsheets are underappreciated, so is Multics -- this article is full of hot air. It implicitly equates Haskell with functional programming. It hypes HOTT but doesn't explain. It bashes West Coast programming culture for being short sighted and money hungry, while praising the finance industry. (Who are never short sighted or money hungry?) Worst of all, it name-checks a bunch of category theory lingo but doesn't do anything with it besides try to look smart.
Actually, the worst thing about this article isn't the hot air. The worst thing is that I think I would agree with it, if it had ever managed to get to the point.
- jacinabox 8y agoRight, so technically there is no reason to deal with monads directly. Andrej Bauer's Eff, is an experimental language, which feels a lot like Standard ML, but incorporates the power of monads (really, algebra effects and handlers) under the hood. There's really no reason to conflate "monads" (the idea) with "monads" (the hairy syntactic overhead), and believe me, it gets hairy.
- reinman 8y agoThe reason that monads don't need to explicitly show up in an article about monads is because they are the same manifold as the subject line. For the same reason, people don't use the suffix "set" or "collection" when designing a relational database schema. If you are already in the manifold, it makes no sense to call it out separately (e.g. Russell's paradox)