could you clarify what you mean when you say you are "more disappointed by a spec which chooses to break duality without informed ground?"
I am no proponent of Observable, nor have I interacted with them. I feel the same as you about its verbosity, and I appreciate your rubico library. In the end everyone mostly have moved on to async functions and async iterators, which are at where I wished the level of abstraction Promise spec was. As references, Rust Future is conceptually Future { poll :: () -> Pending | val }, and Haskell Async is conceptually Async { _asyncWait :: () -> SomeException | a }, both of which have their own async/await. Promise is essentially the Pending | val part.
.then has its own semantics and is absolutely not a flatMap for Promises
.then has its own semantics including a flatMap for Promises. The minor mismatches are just a few joins or a pure away. The important part is the concept of sequence.
I understand if you're working with effectful types all the time that you might see the world this way, but in practice I hardly need flatMap at all.
Who are not? I guess we differ about what is effectful. State and error handling are central to programming and are effectful in my vernacular. You just don't need to explicitly write out the flatMap because the language takes care of it.
State and error handling are central to programming and are effectful in my vernacular. You just don't need to explicitly write out the flatMap because the language takes care of it.
Actually I see your point here. I'm becoming more aware that basically everything is an effect, especially when it comes to designing languages. I see how the language can take care of stuff like this; in fact rubico provides a language that takes care of Promises in this way.
The minor mismatches are just a few joins or a pure away. The important part is the concept of sequence.
This thought crossed my mind when I was writing out that example. Basically Promise .then does a whole bunch of flatMaps arbitrarily, if required. I'll chalk it up to a difference of what is effectful.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I am no proponent of Observable, nor have I interacted with them. I feel the same as you about its verbosity, and I appreciate your rubico library. In the end everyone mostly have moved on to async functions and async iterators, which are at where I wished the level of abstraction Promise spec was. As references, Rust Future is conceptually
Future { poll :: () -> Pending | val }, and Haskell Async is conceptuallyAsync { _asyncWait :: () -> SomeException | a }, both of which have their own async/await. Promise is essentially thePending | valpart..thenhas its own semantics including aflatMapfor Promises. The minor mismatches are just a fewjoins or apureaway. The important part is the concept of sequence.Who are not? I guess we differ about what is effectful. State and error handling are central to programming and are effectful in my vernacular. You just don't need to explicitly write out the flatMap because the language takes care of it.
Actually I see your point here. I'm becoming more aware that basically everything is an effect, especially when it comes to designing languages. I see how the language can take care of stuff like this; in fact rubico provides a language that takes care of Promises in this way.
This thought crossed my mind when I was writing out that example. Basically Promise
.thendoes a whole bunch of flatMaps arbitrarily, if required. I'll chalk it up to a difference of what is effectful.