User loginNavigation 
Monads vs. ActorsI just read Gilad Bracha's post "Why Monads Might not Matter." He argues that monads are probably too complicated for most programmers to understand, and that actors might work better as a primary abstraction to solve similar problems. Sharing a similar school of OO thought, this post really resonates with me, although I wonder if we are still misunderstanding monads. In particular, are monads meant to be...
Glancing at the comments, I see many arguments. Monads have supposedly been successfully used in scalaz, but I wonder if this is because Scala has attracted more Haskell programmers than Java programmers as of late. Monads and more general arrows have been used to describe FRP, but I always thought that this was an implementation detail that distracted from elegance of the FRP abstractions themselves (and as a result I really didn't get FRP until making the connection with FrTime). Erik Meijer et al. have brought monadbased technology to .NET via yield statements, LINQ, and Rx, but again...when using these abstractions, I don't see or care about whatever monads are involved. Am I still missing the point? Surely actors can be implemented with monads, but that isn't the point. What should programmers see? By Sean McDirmid at 20110213 01:24  LtU Forum  previous forum topic  next forum topic  other blogs  16564 reads

Browse archivesActive forum topics 
Recent comments
3 hours 45 min ago
4 hours 3 min ago
5 hours 17 min ago
5 hours 49 min ago
7 hours 1 min ago
7 hours 5 min ago
7 hours 17 min ago
7 hours 24 min ago
7 hours 38 min ago
7 hours 44 min ago