3 ms·
>They are not a useful abstraction for programming. They’re mathematically correct, but that’s not the same as what an industrial engineer needs. Pray tell the
by Vosporos 6y ago
>They are not a useful abstraction for programming. They’re mathematically correct, but that’s not the same as what an industrial engineer needs.
Pray tell then, how do you sequentially compose functions operating on values wrapped in an ADT like Maybe or Either?
- lambdasquirrel 6y agoYou don't. You just do it the dumb old simple way, with some boilerplate here, and some boilerplate there. It may not be elegant, but it's not a blocker. Haskell needs more than this, if it's to find wider adoption.
- lmm 6y agoExperience shows that it is a blocker. Programmers will resort to virtually anything to avoid that kind of boilerplate - early return, macros, exceptions as a language feature, reflective proxies.
- ashtonkem 6y agoOne monad at a time is fine, but the problem starts when you need multiple. Monad transformers are completely unergonomic.