Whoa whoa whoa, since when does do-notation look like imperative code, it's just syntactic sugar for working with monads
I also brought up computational expression, take async/await, a lot of languages have it now (c#, js, rust, py etc) but it came from the async workflow f# had to offer
I am Software Developer, currently interested in static type languages (TypeScript, Elm, ReScript) mostly in the frontend land, but working actively in Python also. I am available for mentoring.
It looks like it or at least simulates motion of simple effectfull step by step instructions. In the same way async/await looks like synchronous code. There is a reason for both - it's just more handy and readable. It's syntactic sugar exactly that is why it's not just have.
I am Software Developer, currently interested in static type languages (TypeScript, Elm, ReScript) mostly in the frontend land, but working actively in Python also. I am available for mentoring.
I didn't say it is related only to IO. But for such it looks like one. I am not against do notation I am also not stating it's wrong, I am just saying it's not must to have and being only suger can be added to Elm in any moment.
I am Software Developer, currently interested in static type languages (TypeScript, Elm, ReScript) mostly in the frontend land, but working actively in Python also. I am available for mentoring.
Whoa whoa whoa, since when does do-notation look like imperative code, it's just syntactic sugar for working with monads
I also brought up computational expression, take async/await, a lot of languages have it now (c#, js, rust, py etc) but it came from the async workflow f# had to offer
It looks like it or at least simulates motion of simple effectfull step by step instructions. In the same way async/await looks like synchronous code. There is a reason for both - it's just more handy and readable. It's syntactic sugar exactly that is why it's not just have.
Do-notation isnt effectful code only, it can work with any monad, the same way you can call .bind on an Io/Eff by hand
I didn't say it is related only to IO. But for such it looks like one. I am not against do notation I am also not stating it's wrong, I am just saying it's not must to have and being only suger can be added to Elm in any moment.
How can sintactic sugar for monads be addable to elm when elm doesnt even support typeclasses?
That would be a problem. But we could be having some do notation for specific Monads, like async await is for continuations.
But then we would need something like computstional expressions to use user defined notations