Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > Christopher Smith wrote: >> Honestly, I think Monads are the clearest way of representing this, and >> that says something. > > I don't agree. > > All monads do is declare, "Too hard for the compiler to deal with. > Make the programmer deal with it." > > I don't *want* to deal with concurrency any more than I have to. > That's what languages are for. Not at all. The compiler/runtime gets to deal with the complexity. All the monad's do is enumerate the points where order matters.
--Chris -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
