Tony Morris

@dibblego @puffnfresh I'm not saying that an additional generic .map/.flatMap wouldn't be potentially valuable.

@jankrems @puffnfresh it's not generic. It's equivocal, unprincipled, overly specialised and therefore, just generally useless.

@dibblego @puffnfresh Well, thing is: I used it and I used map/flatMap. "Boy, I sure wish it would NOT flatten those promises!" - never

@jankrems @puffnfresh Pretending there is no difference (Promises/A+) demonstrates the magnitude of departure from real programming imo.

@dibblego @puffnfresh "Real programming" is solving problems. I'm not disputing an academic difference but "does it help solve problems"

@dibblego @puffnfresh We are talking about a language without static types so many patterns that rely on strong types defy the nature of it.

@jankrems @dibblego it doesn't rely on any types. Types only enforce the property. I will contrive a reason for nested promises.

@puffnfresh @dibblego The problem is that you need to "contrive a reason". But conceptual clarity of the problem domain > of tool