3 ms·

> The above is roughly equivalent to this in haskell: It's not equivalent. > How do you avoid pollution? Haskell has <$> and the infrastructure of HKTs to st

• ninetyninenine 2y ago
  I said roughly equivalent. Async functions pollute and represent io in the same way the io monad does. The io monad does not isolate io from your pure code. It’s infectious just like an async function. It’s the abstractions and ways to stop the infection that makes the code pure. You don’t even need hkts to do this. Most languages don’t have a type representing this infection. The infection propagates everywhere without anyone realizing it. The IO monad explicitly tells the developer that the infection is occurring. I’m saying that async functions do the same thing as the io monad. The <$> operator in Haskell is just sugar for patterns to stop the pollution from occurring. You can implement it in typescript too. It just won’t be as general as that operator is defined across functors. In typescript you would define a function across only promises.
  • instig007 2y ago
    "Roughly equivalent" isn't equivalent at all. > I’m saying that async functions do the same thing as the io monad. > The <$> operator in Haskell is just sugar for patterns to stop the pollution from occurring. No they don't. Async functions aren't IO actions in Haskell terms, and for the latter argument of <$>, you need referential transparency (via laziness) too, otherwise your attempt at "sugaring" your async functions will break at the first binding expression in a local scope for future processing elsewhere: ... let arg = processData <$> ioAction in ... Do you want to wrap-and-call-later all of these cases into lambdas by hand? :) Show me an example of that being done in a type-safe way in typescript, and I'll point you at the layers that will break composition at the next binding.
    • ninetyninenine 2y ago
      If You want to redefine the meaning of roughly equivalent then that’s your prerogative. There’s an isomorphism I’m referring to here and if you fail to see it that’s not my problem. As for the rest of your argument, the point is to not use async functions locally in the context of pure logic. The pattern is imperative shell, functional core.
      • instig007 2y ago
        Adding a property-changing prefix to "equivalent" makes it non-equivalent, I thought you would understand it if you were using the word "isomorphism". > the point is to not use async functions locally in the context of pure logic. The pattern is imperative shell, functional core. The point is that IO actions aren't `async defs`, because async defs don't have two important properties to hold eqivalence to IO actions in Haskell. I'm not sure why you're trying to cherry pick arguments to see your argument fit into the slots that don't accept coloring keywords where they don't belong to: seamless composition.
        • ninetyninenine 2y ago
          You’re just playing pedantic games. By roughly equivalent I mean isomorphic. Do you not get it? Isomorphism isn’t equivalency. Sure thanks for pointing the obvious out. Why don’t we get with the program rather than state pedantic details? IO actions aren’t equivalent to async defs. I never said that. I said roughly equivalent which means isomorphic. I’m not sure why you’re trying to say I’m cherry picking my argument when I am the one dictating the point here. I made the first statement and you responded to it and you started out your previous response by trying to turn the conversation to your point. Bro I made the point. I’m not changing the point. You need to not change the topic. In the very beginning I said functional core imperative shell. That’s the point. I guess the io monad doesn’t prevent people from writing shit code in Haskell. You’re weaving in and out of io constantly with almost everything polluted with IO. Pure functions are scattered randomly in a patchwork of compositions without delineation between purity and IO. You don’t see that there needs to be a layer between the two.