Ben wrote:
however, this does bring up a general question : why are applicative
functors (often) faster than monads? malcolm wallace mentioned this
is true for polyparse, and heinrich mentioned this is true more
generally. is there a yoga by which one can write monadic functors
which have a spe
the sequencing matters for applicative functors. from McBride and Patterson
[1]:
"The idea is that 'pure' embeds pure computations into the pure fragment of an
effectful world -- the resulting computations may thus be shunted around
freely, as long as the order of the genuinely effectful compu
Sorry, I thought you or someone was asking why are Applicative Functors
faster in general than Monads.
Functional programming is structured function calling to achieve a result
where the functions can be evaluated in an unspecified order; I
thought Applicative Functors had the same unspecified eva
i'm not sure what your email is pointing at. if it is unclear, i understand
the difference between applicative and monadic. i suppose the easy answer to
why applicative can be faster than monadic is that you can give a more
specialized instance declaration. i was just wondering if there was a
Think of the differences (and similarities) of Applicative Functors and
Monads and the extra context that monads carry around.
--
--
Regards,
KC
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
heinrich and all --
thanks for the illuminating comments, as usual. i've had a little bit of time
to play around with this and here's what i've concluded (hopefully i'm not
mistaken.)
1 - while composeability makes STM a great silver bullet, there are other
composable lower level paradigms.
