Getting dangerously close to becoming an “ML module guy”
Conversation
What if the typeclasses… were bad
4
1
8
yes, yes,
…but still can I have something like modular implicits or instance arguments?
1
3
The programmer can have a little modular implicits, as a treat
1
3
yes, I like treats!
1
3
just kind of a mistake to make me try to make a main course out of the treat imo (as much as I like them)
1
3
Moving out of shitposting mode for a sec, my main gripe with typeclasses is that global coherence rarely makes sense for “good” typeclasses, and wrapping everything in a pile of newtypes, calling a function, then unwrapping is a lot of ceremony!
2
4
Also, they conflate a bunch of notions that _ought_ to be distinct, namely syntax + dynamic dispatch
Like, do notation is hardwired to Monad, even though it still makes sense when we have monad-ish things that aren’t Monad on the nose
2
4
Leans situation with Additive/Multiplicative Groups is another example here. By tying overloaded syntax to dynamic dispatch, we end up in all sorts of weird places
3
3
Replying to
Yeah operators are interesting. Kind of starting to see them more as ‘styling’ to make it easier to read stuff in certain contexts, but you should always probably hang this off something else