Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by greener_grass | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

greener_grass

Then you end up with a pyramid of doom. Fine for small examples but it doesn't scale up easily.

Rust has special syntax (`?`) for this AFAICT.

View on HN

You still don't need monads for any of this. Monads give you an ad-hoc polymorphic way of doing monadic actions.

Short circuiting on `Either` is a specific case of this. You can define your own EitherBind in any language.

    eitherBind :: Either e a -> (a -> Either e b) -> Either e b
    eitherBind (Left e) _ = Left e
    eitherBind (Right a) f = f a

Now you can bind over Either to your heart's content without needing an encoding of Monads in your language.

That's merely syntax sugar. Haskell doesn't even have this sugar and so in a monad you have to bind explicitly, and it's fine. It's not a pyramid of doom.

Haskell has do-notation which is a more general kind of this syntactic sugar

Yeah that's what I said about bind.

Let's consider a language like C++ where it has none of those syntax sugars. The absl::StatusOr is a class with the idea that errors should be values. The standard library has std::expected since C++23. So where is your pyramid of doom?

`?` and `let ... else` both partially address this, yeah.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com