4 ms·

Affordance and Concision

• noelwelsh 14y ago
  Good post. I tend to think of Lisp/Scheme logical and conditional operators taking an implicitly defined monad for the type of "useful value" or "nil" (#f in Scheme). It's just that: 1. You can't add new instances to the type class. 2. The language doesn't check you handle the failure case. If there was a monad type class you could create a type "useful value" or "exception" (called Validation or Either in Haskell and Scala) and have the same concise code. However, without a static type system this kind of system just gets unmanageable (I know, I've tried it). Proponents of dynamic typing often wax lyrical about the benefits of escaping the straight-jacket of static typing. They often don't appreciate the kinds of programs that are impossible to write without a modern type system. NB: this post is not one of them.
• islon 14y ago
  What about a get-or-throw that throws an exception if it can't find the key? You get the best of both worlds. (defn get-or-throw [m k] (or (get m k) (throw (RuntimeException. (str "could't find key " k " in map " m))))) I understand most people use the simpler (key map) or (map key) forms instead of get, but at least you have an option.
  • ivank 14y ago
    That exception message would be lying some of the time: user> (get-or-throw {:k nil} :k) RuntimeException could't find key :k in map {:k nil} user/get-or-throw (NO_SOURCE_FILE:4)
    • islon 14y ago
      You are right, but that's easily fixable with a (if (contains? map key)
• sp332 14y ago
  I like this poem linked to in a footnote: http://www.apl.jhu.edu/~hall/lisp/Scheme-Ballad.text http://www.apl.jhu.edu/~hall/lisp/Scheme-Ballad.text