3 ms·
Why, it is mere an ADT. If you think it is useful - you use it. If you think it is redundant - you use something else. I've tried to explain my view in the com
by dschiptsov 11y ago
Why, it is mere an ADT. If you think it is useful - you use it. If you think it is redundant - you use something else.
I've tried to explain my view in the comment above.
- tel 11y agoI'm not sure I understand from either post. Or rather, I think your perspective is better handled by a language which supports monads than one without. If I want a new execution context in Haskell—it's a mere ADT, if I don't think it's useful I use something else. My point is that everything imperative lives in a monad. If you want, you can choose to be explicit about it which opens new freedoms. Or, if you don't, you can just use the ambient one in languages which have those. Sometimes people realize great things by picking new monads. If it's convenient enough you can do it every other line to great effect. Ambient monads can be a little annoying though since when they exist you cannot "get outside of them" which will reduce your flexibility.