5 ms·

I'm not so sure. The problem is that the world is moving, including hardware, software, interfaces but also people and process. Languages have to optimize again

I'm not so sure. The problem is that the world is moving, including hardware, software, interfaces but also people and process. Languages have to optimize against a moving target. So naturally it's a good idea to optimize for something moving and not something static. This is what makes Scala good. The language itself is not very complex actually, but it enables complex and powerful libraries.

auggierose 4y ago
We are still in the phase where concepts are settling. Pretty sure nobody in a 100 years will think that Monads are a good idea.
- valenterry 4y ago
  Monads are like numbers. You can think they are not a good idea, but they are just a matter of fact and existence. Also, in a 100 years maybe our brains will be completely different. How do you optimize your programming language for that? I don't think you can.
  - auggierose 4y ago
    Given that our brains have been the same for a few thousand years, maybe I don't need to optimise for that. Anyway, what we currently have as programming languages are all workarounds. Necessary for now, because how else would we program? But in the end we need to converge programming, math and logic, and once this is done, we will be ready for anything. And we won't need monads as a crutch, forced upon us by a type system. I am sure the concept of number will outlive the concept of monad in terms of popularity.
    - valenterry 4y ago
      Programming languages will converge after(!) natural languages have converged. Not gonna happen in our lifetime! > I am sure the concept of number will outlive the concept of monad in terms of popularity. It already does. I don't get your point...
      - auggierose 4y ago
        > Programming languages will converge after(!) natural languages have converged. Interesting point. But I think you emphasise too much the surface syntax of the language. The language will be a new form of mathematics, and it will be universal, with adapters to various natural languages, of course.
        valenterry 4y ago
        That's beyond me. I guess I prefer to look at what can happen during my life-span. :)
        auggierose 4y ago
        Oh, I am working on that universal language right now. Shouldn't take more than 15 more years or so.
        valenterry 4y ago
        Ping me when you have something presentable!
        auggierose 4y ago
        Ok!
    - hither_shores 4y ago
      > But in the end we need to converge programming, math and logic, and once this is done, we will be ready for anything. And we won't need monads as a crutch, forced upon us by a type system. 1. Math is filled to the brim with monads, it's just that mathematicians are necessarily specialists, and tend to think about things in terms of their applications to their specialties: they talk about closure operators or algebraic theories or formulas in a formal language, rather than monads as such. But that doesn't mean the monad structure isn't there. 2. Convergence between math and programming (which I agree is desirable) will almost certainly see type theory become more prominent, not less. There is some chance that programmers turn to constraint solvers or ML models for program verification instead, but if they do, mathematicians will not follow.
      - auggierose 4y ago
        Type theory is already dead, it just doesn't know it yet.
- tasuki 4y ago
  > We are still in the phase where concepts are settling. Yes of course concepts are still settling, and they always will be. > Pretty sure nobody in a 100 years will think that Monads are a good idea. Why? I for one am pretty sure monads will be a useful concept a hundred years from now. What about functors, will that concept also be obsolete?
  - auggierose 4y ago
    Listen, Monads are fine, Functors are fine, use them wherever and whenever you like. The problem I have with them is that they are making things explicit that are intuitively clear (Monads more than Functors). That is useful in some situations, but in most situations it is not, and just uses up precious brain capacity. If you go to the shop, you are not expecting someone at the entrance telling you that you have to pay for what you buy, and before paying, you are not telling the cashier that you are going to pay them now. You just do it.

auggierose 4y ago

We are still in the phase where concepts are settling. Pretty sure nobody in a 100 years will think that Monads are a good idea.

valenterry 4y ago
Monads are like numbers. You can think they are not a good idea, but they are just a matter of fact and existence. Also, in a 100 years maybe our brains will be completely different. How do you optimize your programming language for that? I don't think you can.
- auggierose 4y ago
  Given that our brains have been the same for a few thousand years, maybe I don't need to optimise for that. Anyway, what we currently have as programming languages are all workarounds. Necessary for now, because how else would we program? But in the end we need to converge programming, math and logic, and once this is done, we will be ready for anything. And we won't need monads as a crutch, forced upon us by a type system. I am sure the concept of number will outlive the concept of monad in terms of popularity.
  - valenterry 4y ago
    Programming languages will converge after(!) natural languages have converged. Not gonna happen in our lifetime! > I am sure the concept of number will outlive the concept of monad in terms of popularity. It already does. I don't get your point...
    - auggierose 4y ago
      > Programming languages will converge after(!) natural languages have converged. Interesting point. But I think you emphasise too much the surface syntax of the language. The language will be a new form of mathematics, and it will be universal, with adapters to various natural languages, of course.
      - valenterry 4y ago
        That's beyond me. I guess I prefer to look at what can happen during my life-span. :)
        auggierose 4y ago
        Oh, I am working on that universal language right now. Shouldn't take more than 15 more years or so.
        valenterry 4y ago
        Ping me when you have something presentable!
        auggierose 4y ago
        Ok!
  - hither_shores 4y ago
    > But in the end we need to converge programming, math and logic, and once this is done, we will be ready for anything. And we won't need monads as a crutch, forced upon us by a type system. 1. Math is filled to the brim with monads, it's just that mathematicians are necessarily specialists, and tend to think about things in terms of their applications to their specialties: they talk about closure operators or algebraic theories or formulas in a formal language, rather than monads as such. But that doesn't mean the monad structure isn't there. 2. Convergence between math and programming (which I agree is desirable) will almost certainly see type theory become more prominent, not less. There is some chance that programmers turn to constraint solvers or ML models for program verification instead, but if they do, mathematicians will not follow.
    - auggierose 4y ago
      Type theory is already dead, it just doesn't know it yet.
tasuki 4y ago
> We are still in the phase where concepts are settling. Yes of course concepts are still settling, and they always will be. > Pretty sure nobody in a 100 years will think that Monads are a good idea. Why? I for one am pretty sure monads will be a useful concept a hundred years from now. What about functors, will that concept also be obsolete?
- auggierose 4y ago
  Listen, Monads are fine, Functors are fine, use them wherever and whenever you like. The problem I have with them is that they are making things explicit that are intuitively clear (Monads more than Functors). That is useful in some situations, but in most situations it is not, and just uses up precious brain capacity. If you go to the shop, you are not expecting someone at the entrance telling you that you have to pay for what you buy, and before paying, you are not telling the cashier that you are going to pay them now. You just do it.