Comment by tickettotranai | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tickettotranai | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Somehow I hear this all the time, but the haskell people have to realize that code patterns are absolutely a thing in all languages, ever? A lack of syntactic sugar doesn't mean monads don't exist in other languages.

Typeclasses are a distraction, the point is computation ignoring annoying contexty stuff (file not found errors, null on failure, etc) and there's dozens of examples in literally every language ever.

Not all problems are solved with a technical definition.

> the haskell people have to realize that code patterns are absolutely a thing in all languages, ever? A lack of syntactic sugar doesn't mean monads don't exist in other languages.

Where did you get the impression that Haskell people don't realize that code patterns are a thing in other languages, or that monads don't exist in other languages?

Besides the syntactic sugar of "do notation", what Haskell has that most other languages don't have is the ability to abstract over monads, since it has higher kinded types. That is, you can write a generic operation like

    mapM :: (Traversable t, Monad m) => (a -> m b) -> t a -> m (t b)

that works for all monads. Most other type languages force you to write mapM separately for each monad you want it to work with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com