On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Domenic Denicola <[email protected]> wrote: > The point of my post was to demonstrate that fulfill/chain aka unit/bind > could be built in user space *extremely simply*, thus allowing "the nascent > monadic efforts in JS" to go off and do their own thing for a few years > before asking to be baked into the platform.
JS is a compiler target. You are demanding that languages with parametric polymorphism create extra garbage to map their semantics onto your magic. You are demanding that authors who wish to create parametric libraries jump through hoops and uglify their interfaces to provide simple invariants. > Promises, in the Q-plus-then-sense, have paid their dues. Have they? Which languages have promises-in-the-Q-sense baked in? > It's not very sporting for the monadic efforts to hijack the > promise-standardization train, without first doing similar due diligence via > real-world implementations and experience. Haskell. OCaml. Any language with parametric polymorphism and static types. Actual arguments are preferable over unsubstantiated assertions and attempts at marginalization. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
