rustyzig

Nah. 2015 BCE is still way too late in the game. It is clearly not using the Gregorian calendar. 2015 is only remotely plausible under Holocene.

Moggi's social influence is everything as introductions can only happen in the social realm. It continues that all evidence I can find suggests that his work went unnoticed until Wadler pushed it into view. In other words, people came to learn about his work only because of Wadler making the introduction. Nobody, except where one may find it trying to be implied in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48304692, has suggested Wadler invented monads. The OP clearly wrote "introduced", not "invented".

They're all gone completely, or gone as in moved to where they don't have to suffer ridiculous real estate costs? There are approximately 50 machine shops within a stone's throw of my place out in the middle of nowhere. I haven't been around long enough to truly know if that is more or less than the historical norm, but best I can tell it is a growing sector locally.

And with full respect also given to Moggi, introductions are only introductions if they are heard.

If we were talking about the first person to discover monads, Wadler clearly would not be he. Wadler was but a wee toddler barely sputtering out his first words when the term "monad" was coined. As we are talking about who introduced monads to computer science, the signs I see continue to point to Wadler. His work is, by all appearances, what caught the attention of the computer science community. "Monads for functional programming" is regularly cited as the seminal paper. They are strongly associated with Haskell. It would even appear from the previous comment that you only came to learn about Moggi because of Wadler making his introduction, which echos Moggi not being particularly influential socially.

If you have evidence to suggest that Moggi played a bigger role in introducing (not inventing) the concepts, I am definitely keen to learn about it.

As you point out, monads come from category theory, not native to computer science. Thus there had to be someone to introduce approaches to applying monads in computer science. The paper usually credited with that is: https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/marktoberdorf/b... Which the parent rightfully points out was written by the same person primarily responsible for the design of generics in Go: https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/topics/go.html

What kind of modern C wizardry is that? qsort was:

    qsort(base, nel, width, compar)
    char *base;
    int (*compar)();

> - Why Redis over in-memory cache? - Why GraphQL for this one service but REST everywhere else? - Why that strange exception in the auth flow for enterprise users?

These are all implementation details that shouldn't actually matter. What does matter is that the properties of your system are accounted for and validated. That goes in your test suite, or type system if your language has a sufficiently advanced type system.

If replacing Redis with an in-memory cache is a problem technically, your tests/compiler should prevent you from switching to an in-memory cache. If you don't have that, that is where you need to start. Once you have those tests/types, many of the questions will also get answered. It won't necessarily answer why Redis over Valkey, but it will demonstrate with clear intent why not an in-memory cache.

It could be an overestimate, it could be an underestimate, or for a specific family buying a specific home it may be spot on. It is kind of like saying that it costs $5,000 to build a software application. That statement is true, but meaningless.

Isn't that the general understanding? As I understand it, everyone was expecting the world to fall into a recession on the heels of the COVID situation and everything that came with that. Which much of the rest of the world effectively has (or at least close to it), as expected. The surprise is that the US is still doing okay.