Mmm... I'm not following. You're talking about Functor <: Applicative <: Monad <:... right? If we assume that they are broken - you've exposed a bad implementation, but that doesn't invalidate the principle though. It doesn't show it's impossible to implement a sane, say, Show
-
(Not you specifically - you don't, that I can see. But since I've given a talk on type classes, I do get lots of "why are you talking about type classes, Scala doesn't have them, you don't know what you're talking about" comments. *That* is the source of my frustration).
"does or does not have X" is a longstanding tradition for programming, especially within Scala. It allows us to avoid the hard questions, such as, "is X actually useful?" I find it boring and ego-centric, not frustrating.
-
-
Just to be clear though, these comments weren't from the Scala community...
-
Anyway, thanks for helping me understand your point of view better. I agree that "Haskell doesn't have X" isn't useful, but being repeatedly told "Scala sucks because it doesn't have X that Haskell" does over and over again, even when provably false, is frustrating.
- 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.