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
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @withoutboats
You don't understand the practical purpose of monads and now you are angry. Sucks to be you, doubly so.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @dibblego @withoutboats
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @mgattozzi @withoutboats
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.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dibblego @withoutboats
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @mgattozzi @withoutboats
and I've been using Haskell professionally for 15 years, so what? It's OK to not understand some things, even if "used Haskell for years." I've seen it before. Today, I will not understand a thing. It's not a big deal. As to the weirdly defensive justification, it's bollocks.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dibblego @mgattozzi
hey bud just here to tell you that unless you make a big change in your life you will never fill that hole you feel inside you and you will never be happy
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @withoutboats @mgattozzi
FYI, that signature in the document that you claim is different to >>= is actually the same as >>= We should change that while I am changing my life and stuff.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'd have to go digging again. It was the composition of two functors in one part of the signature, claiming that this made it all different. It's not.
-
-
-
Replying to @withoutboats @mgattozzi
Heh :) No, there are lots of things that are wrong in that document. I was just picking the first, easiest, beginner-level one. I'm not going to bang on about it. Go on your merry way if you choose. I like learning and sharing ideas.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.