4 ms·

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 b

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.

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.