Tony Morris

No matter how well they can be analogized to a math formalism, your abstractions were *not* handed down to you from on high by the almighty

The Rust community contains a vast knowledge of PL theory, including deep and technical understandings of type theory and pure functional programming

It makes me very angry when the knowledge of our community is dismissed from a place of complete ignorance about the technical challenges we are responding to

You don't understand the practical purpose of monads and now you are angry. Sucks to be you, doubly so.

If all you have is a Monad, everything begins to look like a >>=. We do understand. Many Rustaceans also have FP knowledge. Just because something works in one language does not mean it will in another. The thread they linked contained a very thorough explanation as to why.

Boats has a very deep technical understanding of this stuff. To be dismissive of this as if people haven't spent the time to think this over, as if no thought process has gone into it, and discount years worth of technical and design work is saddening.

You don't understand the practical purpose of monads and now you are angry. and now you're sad? It's pretty obvious from reading the weirdly defensive justification that there is not a good understanding. It's OK to not understand a thing.

Lmao I've worked using Haskell professionally for 3 years and used Rust for 3 years. I understand why we can't. Not gonna bother arguing with you further.