@wycats @steveklabnik None of those are used as monads in JS, or even have a monadic instance (although they could have)
@robotlolita @steveklabnik @samth you lose them for a subset of types, but retain them otherwise.
-
-
@wycats@steveklabnik@samth sure, but that breaks e.g.: `sequenceM`, if you want to write it. The laws are important for abstraction/comp -
@robotlolita@steveklabnik@samth yes but there's a spectrum of "losing the benefits" -
@wycats@steveklabnik@samth in the case of monads, I'm not sure there are any benefits besides generic fns/composition, though. -
@robotlolita@steveklabnik@samth usually I think of the point of monads as encapsulating some effect that is usually non-local -
@wycats@robotlolita@steveklabnik@samth It's simpler than that. There are intuitions that can expressed in terms of effects/structure. -
@wycats@robotlolita@steveklabnik@samth but what you said - no. And it's just intuition. You can't start there without a more precise def. -
@bitemyapp@robotlolita@steveklabnik@samth What makes you think I'm speaking in terms of intuition because I don't know the math? -
@wycats@robotlolita@steveklabnik@samth pattern-matching on past experience. I don't know any math either, I just teach the stuff. - 50 more 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.